Skip to Content
 

Crystal Heroes: The Reboot!

Just figured I'd jot down some game related information for the "Crystal Heroes" Re-boot!

The deck is comprised of ten (10) cards:

"x": Warlord - multiplication = 2 x 3 = 6 (1x)
"|": Thief, Ranger, Bard - special or = 5 | 3 = 10 (2x)
"-": Mage, Cleric - subtraction = 6 - 2 = 4 (3x)
"+": Fighter - addition = 4 + 3 = 7 (4x)

Those are only the classes and operators. The one worth noting is the "special or": what it means is "of two (2) numbers, choose the highest and add them together." So 5 | 3 = 5 + 5 = 10.

I'd have to check the balance - to see if this game concept might work.

Just some quick ideas for the game ... considering it's in it's third or fourth incarnation! :P

Comments

Spent the evening tinkering

I've now got a spreadsheet with ten (10) cards with new abilities based on constructive criticism on BGDF. With some help I managed to define an eleventh (11th) card which will be added to the pool of cards available in the game.

My philosophy is simple:

  • A starter deck comprised of ten (10) specific cards. If you buy a starter deck, you get a discount off the normal price of those same cards.
  • Each card has a price and can be purchased separately, in the event you want to build multiple decks.
  • Pay for the cards you want, not be forced to buy packs to chase rarity. Cards are given a value based on the perceived value of the card.
  • You won't pay more just because people buy a lot of any given card. Prices will be pre-established.

I wouldn't mind having a website that sells these kinds of cards. Could be cool, not sure if many people will buy - but it would be my third game that I have designed and developed into something more than just an idea.

Cheers!

Revisions

Here are the revised Classes in the game:

"x": Warlord
"|": Guild
"-": Magic
"+": Soldier

This is a slight improvement... I know a Cleric is not per se a "Magician", but there is some form of Miracle working. Not all Roles fit into the "Guild" designation - but again they generally encompass the correct roles...

Comments/feedback welcomed.

So my spreadsheet looks GOOD!

I am thinking about designing the Illustrator cards (Black & White) and see what I can come up with. I will start working on those on Friday Night! I hopefully can design the cards and print them out Saturday Night... So I can playtest Sunday Night!

Might be busy during the weekend days - so I figure I'll stretch my designing into the later hours!

That's the plan considering the spreadsheet looks pretty decent. I'm not saying it is "perfectly balanced" (that to my memory is reserved for RPGs! :P) but it might be fun to play a few rounds and see the game's real potential.

It's a Micro Game - so it needs to be Fast and Simple. But it's also got to have sufficient choices and a little strategy - if people will be expected to play the game!

Cheers everyone...

Long weekend! Yahoo!!!

Well the good news is that next week is "Labor Day", so Monday is a day off! That's kind of good since it gives me more time to tinker with this game. An extra day means that I will probably be able to get more time for playtesting the early prototype...

We'll see how the long weekend unfolds!

Tomorrow - delays in design!

Well I started on the "wrong foot". On Friday I started playing around with Icons (SVGs) and should have focused on the cards themselves. Was a bit tired in the afternoon - and did not get around to working on them today either.

So tomorrow is a DAY OFF! I plan to wake up at a normal hour and spend the morning developing the cards that I will use to playtest the game.

Hopefully it will only take a couple hours of design - focusing on the right things might also help.

I've also been thinking about "Tradewars - Homeworld" scenarios... Another itch I'd like to scratch! :)

Happy Labor Day!

More delays...

Got the 10 cards for the standard deck done - but I decided to throw caution to the wind, and continued to design some of the extended cards sets that can be bought.

Needless to say, this has delayed me quite a bit. I still have 6 more cards to do for a total of 18 cards (on two pages).

I guess initial playtesting will have to wait for next weekend... Cutting and printing (my favorite things - not!) will have to also wait. Got to finish up the remaining cards... And maybe add 4 more for all 22 cards...

We shall see - how I feel moving forwards tonight!

Cheers.

Spent some time cutting the prototype

I've managed to print all the cards (44 in total) and have completed the cutting of 9 cards so far. I finished off the designing this evening and then the printing took a couple of minutes - but I didn't get to start cutting before 10 PM.

I also had to re-sort two (2) decks of 54 cards and remove old "prototype" cards for another game that I had been working on - but is now on hold.

The key to "Crystal Heroes" is that it is a light, compact game. It doesn't need a huge budget to make the game "come to life". But future initial playtesting will determine if the game has any "legs to stand on".

Will continue cutting more cards tomorrow evening!

Darn initial playtest - failed!

Well the first playtest went - as I had expected: BAD!

The game has a 50% odds of you getting the Warlord in your 1st hand which was supposed to "populate" your "Operations" in the support row. This sucks.

I have been re-thinking another way of building the field. And it's very cool because it has a lot of "hidden information" or "partial information" that force players to reveal cards "as necessary".

The NEW idea is that cards are chosen in groups of 3 cards. On each turn you must place sufficient cards such that you will be able to play 4 Melee cards and 3 Support cards (7 in total).

I will playtest this method tomorrow night.

Then I will give an honest report on what I think about the game... Let's hope this grouping concept makes the game more enjoyable!

Note: With this new grouping mechanic, the odds of not getting the Warlord are down to 20%... Which is good because not having him in the mix - just ruins that game. Since you cannot multiply values, the result will be that your total will most likely be less than your opponents.

However the opponent has the same odds (20%)... So if both player "luck out", the result is fair.

"Ruined" game

If not having the Warlord "ruins that game", why is this even being left to chance?

If that 20% figure is correct then 32% of games will see one player having the Warlord and the other not having it. Almost a third of games being "ruined" wouldn't be acceptable to me.

(Calculation, as per previous probability discussions, is that the chances of one player getting the Warlord and the other not getting it is 0.8*0.2 or 16%. This is doubled to 32% because there are two different ways this can happen: Player A gets it and Player B doesn't, or vice versa. The chances of both players getting the Warlord is only 0.8*0.8 or 64%)

Why not build a game where the Warlord is not shuffled into the deck at all, and you always place it (as your final card?) then have to build toward that moment based on the random draw of the other cards?

Thank you Steve!

@Stevebarkeruk: That might seem like a very "logical" idea!

Since there is only one (1) Warlord per player's deck, perhaps you could use the Warlord at ANY time. It is set aside and the deck is comprised of nine (9) cards.

There would be three (3) rounds in which you place up to 3 cards at a time... and you could play the Warlord card - during any desired round - based on the other cards in your hand.

This gives players more "control" - no more randomness - and it is very deterministic. I think this would be a more "competitive" option also. It makes the rounds more up to the player - to decide when to play his Warlord...

I will playtest the game using this option. My guess is that IF you have strong cards in your hand - you will want to use the Warlord to try to make a better score.

I must admit - the three (3) rounds is BETTER than the previous two (2) rounds. The game feels more fluid - smoother you might say.

I think this game has "POTENTIAL". More thought needs to be put into the game itself - for better playability.

New update: more playtesting!

Well I have been playtesting the *NEW* method of playing the cards (in burst of three cards) and it works pretty well.

This approach seems to have some merit. And as Steve suggested, I made the playing of the "Warlord" card - whenever the players felt was the best time.

The game was very close: 19 pts (Red) vs. 20 pts (Blue)!

One player used the Assassin and killed one unit - but that player still won the duel - considering two units were killed (0 points each).

What I am thinking is instead of FORCING a player to put his Warlord in the "option" space, you can play ANY card you like. This acts like a bluffing mechanic. So either you bluff or play it straight is up to the player!

Either way by "stashing" one (1) card, means that getting the "Warlord" is 100% during one of the three (3) rounds. "Stashing" the "Warlord" guarantees that the player has the option of playing the card - whenever he sees fit.

I'm not "disappointed" by this Micro Game - in its present form.

Could actually become something playable with a few more rounds of playtesting!

Cheers.

Determinism works much better

Knowing that you WILL get the "Warlord" is far more interesting than scenarios where you might not (those old 20% or 10%).

Now by "placing" a card to the side, you have multiple strategies that open up the game...

  1. You can place a dummy card in your "Reserve". This way you know the "Warlord" will be one of the other nine (9) cards that will be played.
  2. You can place the "Warlord" in your "Reserve". This allows you to control when he gets played (at your discretion).
  3. Another option is to place a "High" Crystal point card in your "Reserve". What this does is open up the odds of where the "Warlord" might be without actually pinpointing the location. For example he could be in two (2) different positions. This would force the opponent to take actions/abilities on two (2) cards instead of one.

I'll be running some more playtests and give more feedback as to the results...

More playtesting!

Interesting enough, it seems like the "preliminary" playtests are "conclusive":

Crystal Heroes - the Reboot ... may be a viable game.

So far building the "ranks" is a good mechanic, blended with the three (3) card draws making it sometimes more chaotic than usual. But you "feel" like you are doing "something".

It feels more like you are assembling your army for the battle.

So far I have had one player build his play area and then the second player do it. What this means is that "building your play area" can be done simultaneously by both players.

The "battle" round is also very fluid - doing damage based on the RPS-9! You can also inflict damage via abilities... That also is cool.

I've also found the time to "tinker" with the cards and the spreadsheet. I have decided that ALL cards should have an "ability" (Passive or Active). This gives more "umph" to Soldier cards which are high in value - but did not have any abilities.

I will make corrections of the cards themselves on Friday night... and hopefully get them all cut so I can play a few round over the weekend! But all-in-all the game has some potential, even if it is just a "Micro Game"...

Lots of potential!

Can't wait until next week's playtest with the NEW cards (with the updated abilities...) This will play a pivotal role in seeing if the game - with the added abilities - is just as playable and FUN.

One thing that is very cool - is the hand size being reduced to three (3) cards.

This works real well because it limits the number of outcomes how you can use the cards in your hand. Combining those cards and the "reserve", adds a whole lot of depth to the game.

Building your forces simultaneously (which I cannot do alone), will also improve the time taken to play a game. Maybe half the time, the game could resolve itself in about 5 minutes!

The playtests are giving me "good bang for my time".

For those of you who have read some of my Blog entries - I've been trying a LONG time (years) to try to design a "Duel"-type game that uses a very limited hand. The "Crystal Heroes" Reboot ... might just be *enough*!

Looks like we're both trying

Looks like we're both trying to achieve small hand 1v1 games, albeit in different ways.

In my game OverRealm you have a hand of seven cards – three can literally be seen as Rock, Paper, and Scissors, while the other four are drawn from a shuffled deck of 15 minions. So three cards are static and return to your hand (and played in a different phase) while the other four are ever-changing, forcing players to adapt. Four has felt like a good number for that so...I guess you have me beat :)

Glad to hear your making progress. Keep it up!

I think we have different "goals".

@Calvin: Yeah I've been trying this for years... "Rain of Fire" has seen a bunch of crappy versions of the game (Maybe like 4 iterations). "Crystal Heroes" is on it's second version.

I took a quick look at OverRealm - it actually looked pretty cool.

But it's true like you said, we have different goals.

OverRealm is more "thematic" in that you can play different characters. "Crystal Heroes" is more about "Deck Construction" and a neat RPS-9.

My goal is to achieve something like the "Magic Aftermarket" sales model.

I want players to go to the "website" and be able to buy "groups of card presets" or solo cards, all predetermined values based on the card's importance. No rare, mythic chasing. I so HATE chasing cards - but deep down I LIKE it too... :)

But I never get Mythic cards, so it blows! :P

Good luck with OverRealm - it looks to have a lot of potential. I'm not too sure about "Crystal Heroes"... It's taken a lot to design a game that isn't BORING or too simple (for a duel: 1 vs 1).

Cheers!

Update: What I am aiming for is when we release a *NEW* card, the card is available for purchase. There are 200 cards per lot. After that they're all gone. So if you want the Mythic "Mountain King" (Dwarven Warlord) which allows you to GO FIRST during the Battle Round - well you'll have to be willing to *cough* up some bucks - because that card will set you back $9.00!

This is a "competitive" game where knowing your deck and its cards is very important... Good decisions + some luck could lead you to victory!

It's not like Magic where you have to keep buying boosters. No you can buy one (1) card at a time (with a minimum order of maybe $5.00 + shipping). And as long as there are cards available to buy - you can buy them. When a lot runs out - I will need to re-order and that could take time (production, overseas shipping, shipping to the customer, etc.)

I want to Kickstart "Crystal Heroes"

This game being a small "Micro Game", I am pricing the game at $20. At this price I get a pretty decent Artwork Budget and can make some profit provided we reach some "stretch goals".

The "stretch goals" are pretty simple: you get more cards for your $20. The total goes from 10 cards to 22 cards at 800 backers. That's more than double the initial amount of cards...

I'm not trying to make millions with this game. On the contrary, the goal is to re-coup money for what was invested in "Tradewars - Homeworld".

This is also not a "cash grab" - the game is GOOD and I hope the artwork to be FANTASTIC. Since it's a "Micro Game", no setup time (offline deck construction) and a game last 5-10 minutes at most...

You can bring several decks if you like, pre-built with all the cards ready to go! So you can have three (3) decks you can play for a different strategy each time you play a game.

Cards will be reasonably priced some are only $1.00, others $2.00... Of course the "Warlord" cards are more pricey ... but that's part of the charm of the game. No chasing rare/mythic cards, no booster packs, just straight up individual cards for sale!

Is this really a "microgame"?

If I'm reading this right, you want to charge $20 for ten cards. Is this going to be like Tradewars where each player needs their own set, as well? So a playable game of 20 cards costs $40?

Nobody is going to pay that.

Probably the most famous microgame is Love Letter; that game gives you 16 cards for $10 and is totally self-contained, plays 4 people, no expansions needed. More expensive microgames like the Tiny Epic series cost $30 and play up to 5 people out of the box, again self-contained and not needing expansion. In other words, if it costs $40 to play your game, you're not exactly competitive in the microgame market.

The charm of microgames is you get a lot of play out of a small number of components. Most people aren't going to embrace this attitude of paying for more and more extra cards because then it's no longer a microgame. If such cards are more powerful than the base set (which they'd presumably have to be, for anyone to want to pay for them), you are creating a "pay to win" model where someone can buy all the best cards and destroy anyone who wants to play with their base set. That isn't going to be fun.

Given that your plan varies so wildly from the microgame model (pay a low price for a self-contained game with a few components) and the CCG model (buy boosters with varied rarity so you can build multiple decks and/or trade), I think you need to do some serious market research to prove to yourself and potential investors that this is a viable business model because right now I'm just not seeing it.

You seem to assume that people will buy your games en masse because you think they're good. Quest Adventure Cards didn't sell. Tradewars isn't selling either (and why are you even talking about expansions for that game in another thread, when nobody is buying the base game?). Why do you think Crystal Heroes will sell (other than a "this is a GREAT game!" belief)? You're breaking from the models of both microgames and CCGs yet assuming the game will still be successful because...why, exactly?

None of this is intended as an attack, these are just questions that I feel need to be answered in a realistic way. Everything I'm saying here is coming from a place of not wanting to see you invest thousands of dollars in art yet again for a game nobody is going to buy.

How I see it...

It's a "Micro Game" if it takes 10 cards to PLAY the game (per player).

If you have at home another 50 cards or you decide to bring 3 decks of 10 cards to a duel... That's your business.

What I'm setting up is that the game is short (5-10 minutes) and you can play several games to determine the winner (like best out of three or best out of five).

Whatever your strategy is. The idea of more games is to have more "Mana". You start with 5 Mana points and for each loss you gain +2 Mana points. So in a best out of five scenario, players can both have 9 Mana points and battle it out for the victory... The Mana points are still "to be defined", I may change the rules concerning them... This is just for better explanation.

As for price, the bottom price of $20 with stretch goals means you get 22 cards for that price. That's under $1.00 per card. And you're buying into the game - not just a price point. There are a total of 91 different classes of Heroes and there can be doubles of a card in the deck or single if the card is UNIQUE.

The expandability still doesn't mean that at its core it is not a "Micro Game". Based on size and time to play, I think it still earns the title of "Micro Game".

I went from chaotic to deterministic because I want this to be a COMPETITIVE game. Where strategy plays a bigger part than luck. Even though you are still forced to play the sub-optimal scenario when you try to build your equation (because of the card you draw for your hand - and the order you get them in).

.

But before stretch goals it would be 20$ for 10 cards? And that's only enough for 1 player to play a game that's designed for 2 players? And you need 800 backers to reach a stretch goal where maybe there's enough content to play the game with a single purchase?

From a gameplay perspective I'm still a little perplexed as well. But I think that's just on my end from the content that's been shared in this blog.

I still don't see it

If your game only has an attractive price point if stretch goals are met, that isn't great. If I'm going to back a game on KS, I have to assume that stretch goals *won't* be met, when judging whether the risk is worth it.

So you're trying to achieve a critical mass of investors who can only rely on the basic, overpriced version of the game, in hopes that if you reach that critical mass other people will then jump on board to make it a reasonable price for everyone. You don't have a brand or a loyal customer base to give you that initial mass of investors, so I don't think that's very realistic.

We're going to keep disagreeing with what constitutes a microgame so I won't argue on that point any more. I do think you could benefit from looking at a variety of other successful microgames and considering why none of them look anything like what you're proposing, but that's up to you.

You haven't addressed the turn-off of the "pay to win" model you're suggesting. Are you assuming that the ability to buy upgraded cards will trigger an arms race that will force all players to buy them in order to stay competitive? I think you're far more likely to see people just quit the game when they realise they can't be competitive without paying more and more money. Microgames, as a rule, appeal to casual players, not hardcore players who have endless money to invest.

You also haven't addressed the question of why you think this game will sell, when your belief about that regarding your other games has so far proved inaccurate. Why is this game going to be different in that regard?

No stretch cards are BONUS cards

Mark Simulacra wrote:
...And you need 800 backers to reach a stretch goal where maybe there's enough content to play the game with a single purchase?

No 10 cards is all you need to play (per player). The extended (or stretch) cards allow you to customize your 10 card deck... With different strategies using different "Heroes".

There's a lot of movement in term of the gameplay - I'm working on new changes that will impact the game some more. This is still a fairly new design even if it is the effort of probably 10 badly designed duel games before it.

.

questccg wrote:
No 10 cards is all you need to play (per player). The extended (or strech) cards allow you to customize your 10 card deck... With different strategies using different "Heroes".
So it would be a microgame that costs a minimum of 40$ to play a game of? Even potentially split between two players that seems like a pretty large ask. (I had assumed that the stretch goal would mean there was enough content for two players to play with one 20$ purchase, but I take it I was wrong.)

You are entitled to your opinion...

stevebarkeruk wrote:
...You haven't addressed the turn-off of the "pay to win" model you're suggesting.

Even if you have the BEST cards, that does not mean that someone with a "base" set cannot beat you. I'm trying to achieve some form of balance. But as you know it's hard - because people EXPECT better cards as they are natural to be designed and made. So it's a tough one to crack... There is still work to be done in this department...

stevebarkeruk wrote:
...You also haven't addressed the question of why you think this game will sell, when your belief about that regarding your other games has so far proved inaccurate. Why is this game going to be different in that regard?

I don't know... I think the $20 price point is rather attractive. KS games are usually in the $30-$40 range (that's what research has proved). $20 sounds like a good deal... I'm sorry you disagree... But spending $20 is not a lot of money by my standards.

Also I'm basing myself of Hamish's years of developing simple, small and affordable games model. It's worked for him, he's sold several thousands of game over the years. I'm hoping going as lean as possible, might make for an interesting and affordable game...

You're missing the point

Your game doesn't have a $20 price point, it has a $40 price point that you're splitting between two people. Nobody is going to look at this and say "I'll spend $20 and hope against hope that someone I know will do the same". If they buy it, they'll buy two copies. It's the exact same problem you have with Tradewars; you're trying to draw people in with the promise of a cheaper game, then you're scaring them away by revealing they need 2 copies to play it.

And I'm not saying a $20 or $40 game cannot sell on Kickstarter, I'm saying $40 for 20 cards is a ridiculously high price. I'm sure if you look at those $40 Kickstarters you mention, they offer a lot more for that money than 20 cards.

Meanwhile, Hamish's games come out to around $11 US and include a bunch of custom dice and appeal to the massive audience of sports fans who far outnumber fantasy card game fans. It's not a very good comparison.

I don't get why all the fuss...

Magic: The Gathering requires BOTH player to buy cards. Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! do too... Jyhad the Vampiric card game also required both players to buy cards.

There are so many cards games out there that have required both players to spend money to play.

I see this game as being no different. And if you're each shelling out $20, well that's not all that bad. I doubt this type of game will appeal to casual gamers. It's meant to be a competitive game for the Spikes of the world.

It's part "collectible" card game - without boosters or rare chasing. So $40.00 for the game may seem expensive to you. But in the CCG/TCG world, having your own deck and cards is the "name of the game"...

questccg wrote:I don't

questccg wrote:
I don't know... I think the $20 price point is rather attractive. KS games are usually in the $30-$40 range (that's what research has proved). $20 sounds like a good deal... I'm sorry you disagree... But spending $20 is not a lot of money by my standards.

What I'm suggesting is that you are on the losing end of a value proposition.

questccg wrote:
Magic: The Gathering

If you really, really want to make that comparison consider looking at Epic; it was kickstarted for 15$ for 120 cards and marketed as being playable with up to 4 players with one 15$ purchase.

How do you plan to compete with that?

I don't see this as "fuss"

Again, you're missing the point which is that you're not offering value for money. You are comparing your game to the likes of Magic which offers far more value.

These are not unreasonable questions and they are questions you need to be able to answer:

Can you point to a comparable game where people are paying $2 a card for a base set?

When it's possible to get a custom deck of 54 cards printed for around $10 to $15 why do you think $20 for just 10 cards is even remotely reasonable?

Why do you think that the appeal of the massive variety in a game like Magic applies to a microgame with a fraction of the cards and possibilities?

Given that the existing audience for microgames is casual, why are you trying to market a microgame to hardcore gamers?

Are you planning to do any actual market research to determine whether those Magic players have any interest in a game like this?

Can you provide a link?

Mark Simulacra wrote:
...If you really, really want to make that comparison consider looking at Epic; it was kickstarted for 15$ for 120 cards and marketed as being playable with up to 4 players with one 15$ purchase.

I could not find any game entitled "Epic" on Kickstarter: EPIC Dice Tower Defense, Tiny Epic Galaxies: Beyond the Black, etc.

Could you provide a link? I don't know how such a game was KS-ed. My COST for producing a game with similar content is $10.00. If I sold the game for $15.00 I would be totally screwed when trying to retail the game.

My guess is your "Epic" will have a hard time selling because KS people will be like: "I got it for only $15." And if it's like my game, with a 5x multiplier, that means I need to sell at $50.00.

The other thing is that I don't compare games. Because one person decided to mess up his retail price point just to sell his game - doesn't mean that everyone after needs to follow in their footsteps!

Try Google

Kickstarter's built in search is pretty terrible. If you Google "epic card game kickstarter" it's right there. The actual link:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1172937197/epic-card-game

Manufacturing costs

questccg wrote:
My COST for producing a game with similar content is $10.00. If I sold the game for $15.00 I would be totally screwed when trying to retail the game.

I think that you are looking at The Game Crafter while costing your game, am I right? If you take those prices as your manufacturing cost, then yes, you are screwed.

Look at "proper" manufacturers if you are doing a decent print run.

Here's an example. A friend of mine produced her own game, which is 56 cards in a tuckbox in a small print run of somewhere between 1000 and 2000 units. She said that the manufacturing cost worked out at about £2 (so that's something like $2.60 or so) per unit.

If you are talking about trying to get 800 backers, you can certainly figure out manufacturing that gets your unit cost down to a dollar or two.

stevebarkeruk wrote:Again,

stevebarkeruk wrote:
Again, you're missing the point which is that you're not offering value for money. You are comparing your game to the likes of Magic which offers far more value.

I'm not "comparing" the game to anything else. I'm just saying there are other "collectible" games that have each player buying and constructing their own deck for the duels they play. That's all. I'm not saying my game is anything like Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, etc. I'm just saying players have their own decks/cards!

I find people ask me a lot of questions, yet divulge little about their own plans.

It's easy to criticize someone's ideas - just because either you don't like them, disagree with them, etc. First of all there are SOME secrets I'd like to keep - I won't divulge everything about the game. And some of your questions are too "in-depth" at this point in time.

I'm just trying to put together a "nice" game for people to play. And since it's a "collectible" game, I see it in the same light as many of the preceding games out-there in the market (other CCGs/TCGs). It's a "Micro CCG" (I just coined that term!) :P

Why do you insist on adopting

Why do you insist on adopting unorthodox distribution methods for your games? You don't seem to understand the important difference in game markets.

Competing against the Magic: the Gathering crowd is a futile endeavor. That isn't a subset of the hobby market – that game is so popular because it is its own market altogether. There is an insane amount of versatility there for players – multiple different constructed formats (standard, modern, pauper, commander, limited, etc.) – that it consumes most if not all their time. Wizards releases to much new content frequently that their players always have something new to play with. You can't compete with the demands of that market.

The hobby board game market is very different. A boxed game is a full, finished product. End of story. That's the expectation. Within this market are several subsets – heavy gamers, casual gamers, social gamers, competitive gamers – and your product should be focused on one of these groups.

You're under the impression that you can intermingle these very different markets. Sure there are LCG's and expansions, but you're approach with Crystal Heroes diverges from what's expected. Buying single cards? What other game does that? Casual gamers will hate the idea that their base is inferior because it goes against the concept of the game being a full, finished product. Competitive gamers will the hate pay-to-win structure you propose.

questccg wrote:
But as you know it's hard - because people EXPECT better cards as they are natural to be designed and made.

This is simply untrue. Power creep is hated in game design and if players know that this inevitable, they will abandon your game before it's ever released. This is a rude business practice that gamers are watchful of because it disrespects their investment.

Your trading card game wasn't successful because that market is near impossible to crack, especially since your competition against the MtG giant. Tradewars hasn't been a success in part because the one-box-one-player model is pretty terrible. I can't think of a non-TCG that has ever done this successfully, so why bother? Now you want to sell stronger cards for a competitive casual microgame? None of this makes any sense.

Make the game great. Sell it as a two-player game (more if possible). Use traditional business models because there is absolutely no reason to fix something that isn't broken.

Several of us here have warned you about your pricing structures and value propositions, and every time it's met with justifications and opposition. Why continue down a path of resistance when it's not necessary?

If you want to learn more about what a real competitive game is all about, I urge you to read David Sirlin's blog posts. He understands competitive games like no other and has built a loyal fanbase around it.

http://www.sirlin.net/

As for more casual/microgame examples, I think Pixel Tactics is a great example. You get 50 cards (25 for both players), the decks are identical, and there's a good amount of flexibility and discovery in there. There are expansions for it too, but it never involves power creep. You can buy it for $12 and the art is minimal.

I have said what I have needed to. If you continue in this way, fine. But you have been warned.

Advice freely given

questccg wrote:
Magic: The Gathering requires BOTH player to buy cards. Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! do too... Jyhad the Vampiric card game also required both players to buy cards.

There are so many cards games out there that have required both players to spend money to play.

I see this game as being no different.

questccg wrote:
I'm not "comparing" the game to anything else.

I guess we just have a failure to communicate with one another here.

My questions are not because I want to know your "secrets", they are because I think you're making plans which are undermined by not being able to answer those vital questions.

Meanwhile, I don't have any "plans" to divulge. I'm working on my own games and have no ambitions to be professionally published; when I have something to share or that needs feedback, you can be assured I'll ask for it and listen to whatever you and others have to say.

I, and others, ask you a lot of questions because you make a lot of posts with grand ideas about how well your games will sell, without offering much to back up your aspirations.

But again, it's your money and your choice, so I'll leave my feedback at that and you can take it or leave it as you see fit, no hard feelings from me.

No I am talking about overseas production

polyobsessive wrote:
...I think that you are looking at The Game Crafter while costing your game, am I right? If you take those prices as your manufacturing cost, then yes, you are screwed.

Look at "proper" manufacturers if you are doing a decent print run.

No I have as low as possible quote for 305 gsm Black Core print run of 1,000 units. The COST to me is $10.00 per set but each set contains two (2) decks for two (2) players (as everyone was saying would be better). If you want to play 3 or 4 players, you need 2 Box Sets. That means $10,000 for 1,000 units. What happens if I only sell 200 sets?! What do I do with the 800 others? Will I be in a financial hole because of this (probably)?

So no this is "overseas" production (in China). Obviously if I produce 2,000 or 3,000 Box Sets, the pricing is more competitive... But the price tag just keeps getting more and more expensive. I can't afford that.

.

Where are you pricing this?

I can find a printer who would print this for <4$. On 320 gsm black core. With no minimum print run.

e: And that's the price if you wanted 44 cards per package. Add literally a dollar for the deckbox. You could ship straight to the consumer and still probably cost less than 10$ total per package.

FYI the artwork will be amazing too!

I would have bought "Epic" looks real cool. Too bad I missed that KS. I might have bought that game... because of it's tiny form-factor.

I was contacted by a "Magic: The Gathering" artist - who would be interested in doing illustrations for one of my games... I had to put it on the back-burner - but he specializes in Fantasy artwork and illustrating real life-like people in fantasy scenes.

"Crystal Heroes" would be his "baby", no ours...

It's a small undertaking 10 initial pieces of artwork. And it's all "character" artwork because they are all "Heroes" of the different races.

I really want to do this "collaboration". That's why I think "Crystal Heroes" would be the better venture than expansions of TWHW. I've been very lucky with my artists, and this offer is very appealing to me...

Anyhow this is a personal matter - that's why I'm so invested in "Crystal Heroes"! :)

Aren't you rushing this

Aren't you rushing this though?

Normally you want to have a proof of concept before doing the artwork, no?

No rush

I have a lot of designing to do. With the new cards and now new mechanics that I need to see how they will interplay... So yeah, there is still more to do.

But one thing that I have "confirmed" is that the game "feels" GOOD.

I've been tinkering at trying to design a good duel game for several years. And I've failed many times, probably a half-dozen times. So I know how shallow those games felt.

However with the current iteration of "Crystal Heroes", it actually feels like a "game". Obviously there were some cards without abilities - those kind of sucked even if they scored big... So I decided to give ALL cards an ability, some passive, other active, some require more mana points, others less.

The newest version has to be printed and playtested.

And then there are the new mechanics that came to me early this morning. Just some variations on how scoring will take place so that it can balance out with more depth.

I'm not saying the game is perfect either... Far from true. I still have to re-test all the new - but old - cards.

But there's definitely a "game" in-there! And I know, I usually dismiss my duels as being crap. This game is different. It has more potential.

2-player sets

Fantastic to hear that the game is coming together for you. Sounds like all that work is paying off.

Is there any reason you can't just release this as a series of small, 2-player games? You can just release one to start with, then add more later and allow mix-and-match between decks.

Have you ever come across "Lords of War"? It is a two-player battle game, where they released fully-playable two-player sets. The three base sets they released meant that they ended up with six pretty well matched factions to play. Then they added expansions for each base set providing cards that you could swap in for same-level cards in the original set, meaning that there were some extra options for players wanting to customise. Unfortunately they stopped publishing a little while back due to personal issues between the creators, but it is still a fun game to play.

Anyway, just a quick example of a format that sounds like it might work well for your game.

Different approach

@Rob: I think you should tell "Squinshee" (@Calvin) about that game. It may be a more appropriate format for his game to use since he is focusing his game on "characters" and their associated cards.

My game is more general in that players "draft" Heroes but there is no associated cards - all cards are "Heroes" and cards have different abilities. It's more like drafting cards to your side of the table and then resolve battles between Heroes one at a time. As such you can think of your 10 card deck as a bunch of "Heroes" or units. There are no items, events, loot, places, etc.

So your goal is to construct a deck with a specific "format". By following those rules, you build a deck of 10 cards. Some "Heroes" are "unique" and can only appear once in your deck.

@Calvin: You should check out the game Rob mentioned... It could give you ideas how to expand OverRealm!

If OverRealm had expansions,

If OverRealm had expansions, it would be new heroes to play as. Previous heroes would not receive any new cards. This may never happen if I'm able to reach enough stretch goal in my kickstarter (whenever that happens...) which would be to include additional heroes. Truthfully, there isn't a ton of design space in OverRealm, so it's been tough creating new heroes beyond the six I already have. I'm not interested in tacking on new ones if they're not providing a new experience.

I wanted to add something

Amidst all the comments, I did forget to mention one important fact:

-As Ramon(X3M) would put it: I like designing games that I would enjoy playing.

For example "Tradewars - Homeword" I must have played a half dozen games in one day. With different scenarios, different end goal objectives, playing just to stay alive one more turn... That's Tradewars for you - it keeps you on the edge of you seat (and no BS - it's true).

But I would like to see some of the other game elements that we took out of the game - and be restored as "Expansions" - because novice players felt there were too many options to explore, too much that could be done. So we streamlined the game to focus on space battles - because it's what most gamers (kids and casual) seemed to relate to the most.

But personally I'd like to bring Joe's Premium Role Cards (#1), add the fourth scenario we removed from the original game set (#2), next would be the modifiers deck (#3), two (2) additional "core" Race Sets (#4 and #5) and of course the Planetary Expansion (#6). And those are the "concrete" ones that need a prototype and start playing... Most were removed from the "core" game sets - so they are REAL and have already had some playtesting before we removed them in the spirit of streamlining (and simplifying) the game.

I'd like to see some, if not all of those expansions as part of the Tradewars Universe where I could choose what I wanted to play. And maybe play like three (3) games setup over an evening or a Saturday afternoon at a local FLGS.

I kid you not - I really enjoy playing the game.

Same goes with "Crystal Heroes". The game is not completed (design-wise) but I like the direction that I'm heading with it. To me it's not some dumb solve this math equation type of game. In shaping the method of play, I've really felt like the choices I am making will impact the end-result of the game.

So I'd like a "micro game" that is NOT Magic (maybe it could be Epic) but for the sake of argument I don't own a copy of Epic... So I'll continue working on this design because I definitely feel like it has merit. What I want to work on next is negative numbers and how they impact scoring. This to me might be something like some form of "duality" with the game. Subtraction is user by magic users, clerics and mythical creatures. That a pretty cool group of Heroes... I would hate for players to ignore the "subtraction" operator simply because it lowers a score...

As I type I think maybe negative number should be for "chaotic" battles and positive numbers should be for "lawful" battles and "neutral" can be either one. IDK - just yet (could be a change in direction right off the top of a game).

Like I said, if it's FUN to me - it's bound to be fun for others and ... essentially that's what we're all trying to do: make a fun game to play. And in my personal case, I enjoy collaborating on artwork - so that makes it even more interesting when I get the opportunity to work with someone new too! :)

Cheers!

questccg wrote: So I'd like a

questccg wrote:

So I'd like a "micro game" that is NOT Magic (maybe it could be Epic) but for the sake of argument I don't own a copy of Epic... So I'll continue working on this design because I definitely feel like it has merit.

Just make sure that in the end your design can be played with 2+ players and is within reasonable price range.
You could design the best game in existence, but if the potential customer feels that the price is too high for the value, it will kill your game.

$10? Nowhere near "lowest" price.

questccg wrote:
polyobsessive wrote:
...I think that you are looking at The Game Crafter while costing your game, am I right? If you take those prices as your manufacturing cost, then yes, you are screwed.

Look at "proper" manufacturers if you are doing a decent print run.

No I have as low as possible quote for 305 gsm Black Core print run of 1,000 units. The COST to me is $10.00 per set but each set contains two (2) decks for two (2) players (as everyone was saying would be better). If you want to play 3 or 4 players, you need 2 Box Sets. That means $10,000 for 1,000 units. What happens if I only sell 200 sets?! What do I do with the 800 others? Will I be in a financial hole because of this (probably)?

So no this is "overseas" production (in China). Obviously if I produce 2,000 or 3,000 Box Sets, the pricing is more competitive... But the price tag just keeps getting more and more expensive. I can't afford that.

Without even going through a lengthy quoting process with a full run manufacturer I can find 54 card custom decks, 330gsm black core cardstock in custom tuckbox with a 4 page rules sheet for as low as $5.60 on a run of only 500 copies. $9.15 each for a run of 100.

Those can be shipped directly from China to customers at a cost of about $2 each.

$10 per set is not a low as possible quote. Any of the manufacturers can provide a better price than that.

While I think you're on to something with this reboot of Crystal Heroes, I also think you should consider stepping away from the publication, distribution and sales end of it until you have the game mechanics completed. It seems to be clouding the issue and distracting from the game itself.

Once you have the mechanics sound, then I would consider spending time to really look into publication, shipping, distribution, kickstarter, etc. There are a TON of resources out there and plenty of advice being given regularly that it feels you continue to ignore or brush aside.

Spend the time. Get some assistance with the marketing end once you've got something near completion.

You can most certainly make a card game, shipped directly to consumers with a healthy profit margin for a lot less than $20, without going into the 2000+ print run territory.

Sound advice

Kris,

I fully-concur with everything "I Will Never Grow Up" has conveyed to you, as it's not dissimilar to what I've been saying to you for more than a year.

Right now, stay focused on one game...be it Tradewars or Crystal Heroes. You're not at the level of Jamie Stegmaier or Uwe Rosenberg in which you have the freedom, flexibility, or luxury to move fluidly from one game design to another. It's about focus...primarily and almost exclusively on game design. I'm afraid that you're quite obsessed about the financial aspects surrounding this otherwise creative endeavor. Not only will that cloud your judgement, it will remain front and center where it does not belong.

Work toward refining the game mechanics, playtest it until it hurts and playtest it some more, and get it out into other players' hands to test it and break it, as well. As Tom Vasal mentioned in a recent interview, he certainly appreciates what the Game Crafter brings to the industry...but, with a game inventory of 2,000+ games, there's no gatekeeper. Thus, anyone can "make" a crappy game. Send it to a reputable publisher and then you'll know, to a greater or lesser degree, the value of your work.

Once all of the hard design work is done, then it's time to get out on Social Media in a big, BIG way and make your game known. By using Twitter, Facebook, and other outlets, you'll expand your network. Also, if you're not out on BGG as a regular contributor, do so. I've been asked to join more teams as a co-designer or developer in the past year simply because I contribute to myriad posts, thread, blogs, and conversations. Before they'll publish you, they need to trust you and before they trust you, they need to know you.

Again, I'm here to assist you in the capacities for which I'm well-suited...writing, editing, and designing. I'm not a marketing guru, but I certainly use FB and Twitter for my branding. You need to become savvy as evidenced by the FB debacle you experienced a few months back. But again, long before you start burning the midnight oil on Kickstarter Goals, various funding streams, and potential videos...focus...on...the...game!

Cheers,
Joe

FYI to everyone...

I'm talking @Soulfinger's advice:

1. Try to make a profit with "Tradewars - Homeworld" FIRST.
2. Then you can work on something else...

Thanks @Soulfinger ... wise advice.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut