Skip to Content

System: The Customisable Hacker Card Game!

31 replies [Last post]
3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012

System
The Customisable Hacker Card Game!

Aim
To control all 10 “System” cards.

Set-Up
Each Player starts with 5 Pre-defined System cards & Draws 5 Cards. The starting player can not de-activate or re-activate a System Card.

Game-Phases
Draw – Turn Player draws a card from their deck.
Upload – Turn Player may upload any number of Virus or Anti-Virus cards. Data Input cards may not be activated by any Player.
System – Turn Player may attempt to de-activate or re-activate a System card.
End – Certain effects might activate here.

RAM/Memory Value
Each Player starts the game with a a RAM or Memory Value 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 deleting enough Virus Cards 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.

System Cards
Each Player starts with 5 System cards face up on their field. Each System card has two states, an “On” and an “Off” state. When your own System card is On, you control it. When it is off, your Opponent controls it.

Each System card also may contain up to two effects, One which is active while you control it the other active while your Opponent controls it. The effects of each System card relate to one aspect of game play as such 1. Player 2. Deck 3. Hand 4. Field 5. Discard Pile.

When a Player has kept all 5 of their own System cards active and have also de-activated their Opponent's 5 System cards, They win the game.

System Phase
During your System Phase,

You may de-activate an Opponents System by targeting it with a Virus Card. Your opponent may interrupt with an Anti-Virus card. The RAM values of each card are added together, if the result is a negative number, the Virus card win. The Anti-Virus card is deleted and the targeted System is turned off. If the result is a positive number, the Anti-Virus card wins and the targeted System stays on. Each Virus card may only target a System once per turn.

Or

You may re-active your System, by targeting it with a Anti-Virus Card. Your opponent may interrupt with a Virus card. The RAM values of each card are added together, if the result is a positive number, the Anti-Virus card wins. The Virus card is deleted and the targeted System is turned on. If the result is a negative number, the Virus card wins and the targeted System stays off. Each Anti-Virus card may only target a System once per turn.

Virus/Anti-Virus Base Image Template below (Credits to Dabem from LackeyCCG)

http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1520.0;at...

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/553637_280961405...

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/528196_280961278...

Areas to Refine
Interrupt - Should they be discard/bounced afterwards? I want to do something like that for Anti-Virus cards to curve any abuse of the Mega RAM Value but it would also mean I'd have to do it for Virus cards too and this creates whole mesh of other problems regarding resources.

Not that it matters that much over-all but I feel there might be a more thematic word for "effect".

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Revised & 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.

Avianfoo
Avianfoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2012
Tell us...

Tell us, in your own words, how Libra is different to MTG? Why would someone want to play this over MTG?
- This question is worth 30 VP.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
CCG = MTG = Social Stigma!

CCG = MTG = Social Stigma! :P

Anyway,

It doesn't make use of resources in the same way as M:TG, Pokemon or a few other games where they exist as an external entity (Lands, Energy, Locations). Your creatures in this game are your resources (as well as your creatures) and are therefore much more liable to destruction.

There is no limit to how many (Positive) resources you can play per turn unlike in other games where you can only play 1 Land/Energy/Location per turn creating a quite slow-paced game, which sometimes can drag.

There is a risk involved in using up all the resources (positive value) in Libra. In M:TG if you are to have all your lands end up tapped during your opponent's turn, you end up relatively defenceless. This isn't true for Libra, I can still defend myself if my BV is at 0 during my opponent's turn through the use of calling creatures to defend or the effects of variables, however Libra then punishes that player for leaving no room in his BV to pay for Variables by destroying a number of his offensive creatures. Essentially giving a high-risk to full on aggressive strategies and forcing players to conserve resources and Spare BV until it is really needed instead of spending it to swarm, or to use a derogatory term "derp" their creatures out onto their field.

M:TG uses Spell Speeds of Sorcery, Instant and Interrupt, My game has done away with Spell Speeds. They seem to me to be quite unnecessary in the over-all scheme of things, I'm not saying it is bad concept, just that it is unneeded. I would like the players in this game to be able to react at given time if needs be, I don't want players to be constricted outside of the BV System. There is the exception of course, were neither players can activate any variables during the Call Phase.

This point isn't overall relevant to M:TG but in other games, you can choose to attack a player or a creature and the defending player can call creatures to defend or so I believe. In this case, the defence of the called creatures are added to the attack creature usually, however in my game if I were to block a negative creature with one of my Positive creatures, the negative creature's value would get deducted (instead of added) from the defending creatures value, this essentially making the stronger your offensive/negative creature is, the harder it is to defend, once again forcing this situation on players where they should conserve them until needed.

As for why someone would want to play this over M:TG. It is intended for both the new comer to CCGs with the use of simple rules and the hard core gamer with complex card interactions (especially due to the lack of Spell Speeds, which I believe gives it somewhat of a unique edge)

I want people who have never played card games, be able to play this game, I've seen many people interested in CCGs before only to be scared away by the over-abundance of information they had to learn. I want to keep it simple, Easy to learn & hard to master is the motto I'm working from.

So is it unique enough from M:TG? or should I try to find more to prove that?

Avianfoo
Avianfoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2012
Great Answer

You gain 25 VP. :)

So effectively the positive creatures you play are your "lands" allowing you to play negative creatures. So what prevents a player from dumping his entire hand of tiny(ish) positive critters and one massive negative creature (or vice versa) into play and stomping all over the opponent? From this I can only assume that you could be unlucky and draw only positive or only negative creatures then be unable to play. How would you prevent this?

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Revised Reply.

Simply, Risk. This is a question that really comes down to Player interaction, punishing each other for over-extension.

For example, a large positive with many small negatives, in this case the player's balance value is more inflexible than flexible and is suspect-able to attempts of their opponent trying to force a remedy (such as using the card Bounce*)

Whereas with the risks in strategy with many small positives and one large negative are

- Larger the (negative) creature, the harder it is to defend, so provided your opponent has enough BV, they could call a creature of equal or greater strength and attack it. Of course the defending player may choose to defend it but with the risk of losing many small positive balance creatures and therefore possibly being forced into a position where he would have to perform a remedy on his field, which could very well mean taking out the big Negative creature(s) in the end anyway.

As a card game, It has it's problems with luck, just as in MTG you could draw all or no lands (possibly for turns on end.) Overall, I'm trying to debate this game with a small deck size, of maybe 40/30 to improve general consistency.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Style Change

I was suggested by someone in the LackeyCCG forums to change this to a Computer Programming styled game. After some thought, I could see many benefits of it, for one no more allusion to MTG other than being a card game. It also let's me use the idea of the Virtual Reality Internet Matrix as a method to explore other themes (digitally) as opposed to my original incorporation of Time Travel as an excuse.

So some terminology change is at hand

Creature = "Data"
NBV Creature = "Virus" ("Virus Data")
PBV Creature = "Anti-Virus" ("Anti-Virus Data")
BV = Memory

As for data units, I would quite like to use a background such as this

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111021011749/yugioh/images/thumb...

60 Total Cards
20 Individual Cards
2 30-Card Decks
8 Positive Balance Creatures (Virus)
7 Negative Balance Creatures (Anti-Virus)
5 Variables

SK-01
Quarantine
BVC: 1
Return 1 target Data to the owner's hand.

SK-02
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.

SK-03
Quick Update
BVC: 2
Discard 1 Card. Draw 2 Cards. You can't activate another “Quick Update” until after your opponent's next turn.

SK-04
Delete
BVC: 3
Destroy 1 target Data.

SK-05
Pop-Up Blocker
BVC: 6
You can only activate this card when your opponent activates a Variable; Negate the activation and destroy that Variable.

SK-06
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.

SK-07
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.

SK-08
????
BVC:???
????

SK-09
Recurring Infection
BV: -1
When this card is destroyed as a result of battle and sent to the discard pile, draw 1 card.

SK-10
Data Logger
BV: -2
When this card inflicts critical damage to a player, that player discards a card.

SK-11
Undetected Trojan
BV: -3
This card can't be targeted by any Variables that destroy.

SK-12
Malware
BV: -1
No Effect

SK-13
Malicious Ware
BV: -2
No Effect

SK-14
Malcious Software
BV: -3
No Effect

SK-15
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.)

SK-16
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.

SK-18
Alpha Test
BV: +1
No Effect

SK-19
Beta Test
BV: +2
No Effect

SK-20
Pilot Test
BV: +3
No Effect

SK-8 has no ability because for some reason my creativity has dried up a little lately. I'm sure it will come to me though.

JaffetC
JaffetC's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
Seems somewhat like L5R... in

Seems somewhat like L5R... in the sense that creatures are resources and so forth. Even though in L5R you start the game with a few resources in tact, the other resources you buy as the game is played out...

I've noticed that "good" abilities are limited to once per turn. However what if i wanted to play a deck with only Positive Balance Value? is there a punishment for that? is there a reason to play Negative's?

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
JaffetC wrote:Seems somewhat

JaffetC wrote:
Seems somewhat like L5R... in the sense that creatures are resources and so forth. Even though in L5R you start the game with a few resources in tact, the other resources you buy as the game is played out...

I've noticed that "good" abilities are limited to once per turn. However what if i wanted to play a deck with only Positive Balance Value? is there a punishment for that? is there a reason to play Negative's?

Well unless you wanted to stall yourself.through the whole.game, you'd.need negatives.to.inflict.damage considering positives can't attack.

Avianfoo
Avianfoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2012
Code

I think the "hacker"/"data" theme could work nicely then you are not limited to only viruses as NBV's but all sorts of hacker/PC tools.

PBV's could simply be "code" or "source" (Use the source, Luke). So you need loads of code to maintain a Trojan, KeyLogger or Firewall.

Firewall could be a very strong NBV that can't attack, but prevents the opponent from attacking you.

Team Gambit
Team Gambit's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/19/2012
Dealing Damage

I may have missed something but you said I can either attack my opponent or his creature? If my opponent has 10LP (or whatever you want to call it) and my creature at least has 1 attack value wouldn't I win in a few turns? Like I said I may have missed something that you wrote limiting this situation. Also have you thought about adding a sort of "main phase" to the end of the "battle phase" that way in the case your attacks didn't work you have a chance to set up defensively before ending your turn?

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Well one, your opponent is

Well one, your opponent is allowed to defend with any of their PBV's of their choice, which wouldn't get destroyed after successful defence but would return to the defending player's hand after that battle. This should slow down game play relatively enough without creating some form of invincible wall.

Generally I'm going to work on the basis that all creatures can inflict 1 Critical damage to a player, regardless of their BV.

On another note, changing to Hacker/Data theme offers plenty of options for flavour 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?

Avianfoo
Avianfoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2012
3XXXDDD wrote: Del/Thrash Can

3XXXDDD wrote:

Del/Thrash Can = Destroy/Discard

You will be DEL-E-TED!

JaffetC
JaffetC's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
Think there is a huge market for that?

not to bring you down, but do you believe there is a big market for "computer themed" games? especially one that would be a collectible Card Game... So far I know that the Megaman.EXE game didnt go too far in the US. Not many players seem to say, "Hey I want to play a game where I'm a computer nerd"

Also, based on your current rules, I would probably go full positive, since going full negative means you have to discard characters. Many of your Draw cards also in the negatives, and doing a quick set up of playing a lot of Positives will mean that defending against Negatives will be easier.

Giving players the ability to attack characters should also lock those combats out. Whats the point of attacking 1 character if you can send other character to defend for it? It is understandable to use creatures to defend you, but not to defend your other critters. Sure I haven't proxyd and played, however from what I can read, it looks like this game can get stale really quickly based on the core rules alone.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, however I don't want you to think that you are headed in the right direction unless you have stopped and asked your self all of these questions. How many games have you played? How long did the games last? Where your play testers excited? What other themes did you think about prior to the computer theme? With a name like Libra, it makes the assumption you are talking about scales or equilibrium, how does this game explains this?

JaffetC
JaffetC's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
30 card deck with 3x Limit.

30 card deck, with 3 copies limited:

Positives
3x Pilot Test
3x Beta Test
3x Beta Client
3x Release Client

Negatives:
3x Undetected Trojan
3x Malicious Software

Variables:
3x Sort Icons
3x Quick Download
3x Delete
3x Pop-Up Blocker

This is how a deck would look like if you limit each card to 3x a piece and you stick with a 30 card deck.

If your opening hand is 5 cards, then you have only 25 cards left in your deck to work with. Based on the way your rules are at the moment. By bouncing the Positives, all you really are doing showing "tap" or "exhaustion" by bouncing to the hand. This can be potentially problematic. Because based on what the rules say, If I play two 3's then I have 6 points to play around with regardless of the critter staying in play. So if i have to bounce in order to play Pop-Up Blocker, I still keep my 6 points and effectively only start the next turn with less than 6 points, but that doesnt matter much since i get to play both of them for free again on my turn.

Basically my turn will be, playing a bunch of 3's and 2's because there really isn't much of a reason to play the 1's since they will just get in the way. Drop the 3's and then wait for the opponent to play their critters, Anything under 2 will just auto die to the 3's... I dont now... this seems to get out of control rather quickly at 30 cards. It also makes Sort Icons ridiculous good.

Avianfoo
Avianfoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2012
JaffetC wrote:*snip* ouch.

JaffetC wrote:
*snip*

ouch. Though wish I got this kind of feedback on some of my games :p

Though I do agree, there does need to be an "exhausted" mechanic in this game of you can play infinite drawing that leads to more drawing that leads to more...just by having a few positives hanging around. Unless you can only play a limited number of cards per turn.

Since you need negatives to actually deal "damage" and win, and you need positives to play negatives, I don't really see how you can say that you "would probably go full positive". Prease Explain?

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
The name "Libra" was towards

The name "Libra" was towards the idea of the original game play idea and outside of the game's actual theme. It is more of a Project Name rather than a Game name. One shouldn't look into it too much.

I believe there is at least a small but unsaturated market for this type of game as opposed to the vast but over-saturated market that is Fantasy Themed CGs. I also believe that many Fantasy-Based CCGers, while no programmers themselves, do have fondness and familiarity for computer-based items. This theme also lets me explore other themes, such as classic atari games or the more modern MMO. Think of this game more like "Tron/Matrix: The Card Game" more so than "How-to-hack: The Card Game" (for example, I'm not actually going have some symbol represent a Trojan but rather on Trojan horse, with some design, placed on top of the background layer of the picture above). The previous themes were run-of-the-mill fantasy and then further an Animal Kingdom based theme.

As for playing full-positive, here's where some other play is involved. Assuming your opponent has 3 Positive (1 PBV & 2 PBV) and you have 4 NBV (1+1+2) Then you can swarm and overwhelm your opponent. Of course this needs more play testing. Having various 1 Positives gives you more flexibility while lacking some strength, whereas playing high end positives give you strength but lack of flexibility

E.g You control BV+3, You play Quick Update. You've now paid 3 BV when you could of paid 2 BV.

Whereas you have 3 BV+1, You can return two for Quick Update and have 1 BV left over for various card effects.

Your post seems to assume I've either done A) No playtesting or B) Lots of play testing but no improvements.

This game is still in it's quite early stages and has only reached the Solo Play testing stages.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Quote:Because based on what

Quote:
Because based on what the rules say, If I play two 3's then I have 6 points to play around with regardless of the critter staying in play. So if i have to bounce in order to play Pop-Up Blocker, I still keep my 6 points and effectively only start the next turn with less than 6 points

This is where Negative Balances coming up, you also bounce for defending (successfully) so you'll have to choose between defending, activating variables or sacrificing your offensive negative forces to do both. Like Mana in MTG it's is intended to be a recurring resource.

Quote:

really isn't much of a reason to play the 1's since they will just get in the way.

I'll refer to the two points in the above post;

Reason to play Positive 1's is for Flexibility in playing Variables.

Reason to play negative 1's is for overwhelming defence forces. (You have 4 NBV 1's and your opponent has 3 PBV, your opponent will still get 1 hit in to your life)

This is an area where playing conservatively is rewarded with the Negative aspect (save your offensive critters to launch an ambush at once)

I have been thinking over the whole Bouncing = Tapping thing and I could probably use the idea of tapping them but I would have to add rules about how tapped creatures can't attack, defend or counts toward the owner's BV. The Bouncing, while effectively only to show exhausted cards, helps simplify the rules in general.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
What I'm most intrigued by is

What I'm most intrigued by is the balancing costs concept you have here.

I'd suggest dropping your theme entirely until you have all of the mechanics fully fleshed out and fully realized.
For instance, what if every negative value card actually hindered you in some way, so you had to build a deck that had negatives that reduced your effectiveness in one area of the game but didn't directly hinder your positive cards' plan for victory.

The theme isn't what makes a game too much like MTG, the playing creatures and attacking to reduce your opponent's life to 0 is what does it. Though you changed your theme to matrix-esque, I still read it as creatures attacking players.

I'd suggest focusing solely on the mechanics for a brief amount of time to brainstorm and discover the depth and diversity you can achieve through your balancing system. Because, IMO, it's a great concept.

Once you have that more developed, a theme will find its place.

In summary, awesome balancing/cost system, I want to see more of that.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Thank you, the theme is only

Thank you, the theme is only a general idea for now and it isn't really a huge deal. This game was created with only the system in mind and that's been my main focus throughout.

Are you suggesting like Negatives that slow me down? (Once per turn, I'd have to discard something to keep one alive or That I have to hit my opponent twice before landing 1 Damage on him etc;?)

JaffetC
JaffetC's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
The rules state, that you

The rules state, that you must keep a positive or null TBV.
If I play 4 NBV's at 1. wouldn't I be at -4 and hence forth be at a disadvantage since i have to discard till i get to 0?

It seems as though you want for every Positive Critter to have a negative critter on its side. This would then make it so that players attack the Positive first before attacking the player directly. If the resources do not stay in play, then really all you will end up doing is having dead draws. Positives do not attack, and so when defending they wont do anything against NBV's.

say for example your board has 2 PBV's at 1 a piece. I have 2 NBV's at 2 and 2 PBV's at 2. Successfully being at 0. I can send my 2NBV's to attack each of your PBV's and leaving you then at 0. We can say that if you want to play a 2 cost card you would have to bounce both of your little guys. In order for you to save them, if you dont you will lose out on positive value. As long as im at 0 or plus the game will lend it self to the first person to screw the other before ever attacking them. Once the coast is clear then it'll be easy to attack you directly and not worry about my negatives dying.

However lets say your PBV's stayed in play and never bounced, each turn they give you points so that you can play negative dudes, and you are only limited in the amounts that you have per your turn in order to play cards. At that point playing the PBV's and bouncing them seems fine.

So lets say turn 1, would be me starting at 0 points. I play two dudes that give me 3 points a piece and so on my next turn I will have 6 points to spend. Then using the NBV's I can start chopping down my plus value. If instead I decide to bounce 2 of my 3's then the following turn id have 0 points again. total result is that i play cards and not worry too much if my opponent swarms with positive ill just get steamed rolled.

also, playing more positives than negatives lends the game into full abuse. Consider having 18 points to play with by turn 3, taking a few hits in order to rebalance my self with negative guys that have 3 value is worth it. And then i'd only have to play a handful, The reason is because for every -3 that i control, thats how many -2's and -1's that i can deal with freely. You then play delete on the opponents 3's. That would seem simple enough.

Whats the opening hand? whats the deck size limit? whats the card allotted limit? How much time do you see each game being (on average)?

Also, just as a side note, I noticed you reference MTG, how versed are you in MTG? (there are no Interrupts in the game)

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Quote:The rules state, that

Quote:
The rules state, that you must keep a positive or null TBV.
If I play 4 NBV's at 1. wouldn't I be at -4 and hence forth be at a disadvantage since i have to discard till i get to 0?

Yes. This is where conservation comes into play, where players build up there PBV first until they can swarm/overwhelm the opponent with their NBV. I don't understand why you think I suggested to drop your attacking forces before doing anything else.

Quote:
It seems as though you want for every Positive Critter to have a negative critter on its side. This would then make it so that players attack the Positive first before attacking the player directly. If the resources do not stay in play, then really all you will end up doing is having dead draws. Positives do not attack, and so when defending they wont do anything against NBV's.

This is where Variables and other such cards come in as a means to extra defence. As well as PBV's defending other PBVs. I could probably change the frame work of the game to gives PBVs a generally stronger power then NBV's (eg. NBV being a range of -1 to -3 whereas PBV being a range of 3 to 5.) Again though, Conservation & Variables should help deal with it.

Quote:
As long as im at 0 or plus the game will lend it self to the first person to screw the other before ever attacking them. Once the coast is clear then it'll be easy to attack you directly and not worry about my negatives dying.

Again, Conservation is key, your assuming everything the defending player had was laid out on the field, which is in most games generally a bad idea. The system here isn't just to restrict players but also to punish players from moving too fast and risky. There's a good chance he had other creatures in hand waiting to be played

Quote:
However lets say your PBV's stayed in play and never bounced, each turn they give you points so that you can play negative dudes, and you are only limited in the amounts that you have per your turn in order to play cards. At that point playing the PBV's and bouncing them seems fine.

This post is unclear and contradictory because

Quote:
]However lets say your PBV's stayed in play and never bounced
and
Quote:
At that point playing the PBV's and bouncing them seems fine

Quote:
also, playing more positives than negatives lends the game into full abuse. Consider having 18 points to play with by turn 3, taking a few hits in order to rebalance my self with negative guys that have 3 value is worth it. And then i'd only have to play a handful, The reason is because for every -3 that i control, thats how many -2's and -1's that i can deal with freely. You then play delete on the opponents 3's. That would seem simple enough.

The problem here is more likely to be attributed to Card Design, rather than Game design, giving a lower range to the offensive creatures and a higher range to the defensive creatures might hopefully create some balance. In the evolving game, there should be more powerful cards that, well blow a lot of stuff up and their existence hopefully would be used to keep players playing conservative and smart. Instead of risking everything on one move.

Quote:
Whats the opening hand? whats the deck size limit? whats the card allotted limit? How much time do you see each game being (on average)?

5, 30, 3, 0.20-1.00

I only referenced MTG on a theme-based level, not a game-based level. I'm somewhat versed in MTG but only as a Casual Player.

Anyway, with all of the above said and really and truly don't know anything till I get some play testing in.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Images!

Two images up for Critique,

Firstly the old-school design from Dabem on LackeyCCG

http://www.lackeyccg.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1520.0;at...

Second, my more modern attempt (but only with the use of paint)

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/550061_278548235...

Delta sign up in the top left corner is supposed to show the area for PBV/NBV/Variables, The name and -3 should be obvious enough.

The Type Keywords underneath is supposed to be a URL Bar, I'll probably have to give that a frame, as well as the card itself, to give the items inside a bit more prominence. Below is your picture and below that is your generic grey for a computer dialogue box with effect text.

JaffetC
JaffetC's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/19/2011
Id suggest play testing if

Id suggest play testing if you haven't yet. If you are serious about it then it should really only be around the corner. Like, I mentioned before Im only going by with what I've read and thinking scenarios based on the cards you provided makes it simple to see that at the moment. The player that goes first has an overwhelming advantage.

Whats are the rules for setting up the game? Also, what about going first vs. going second?

In terms of card design, ill only consider the design posted as a draft and by no means a final product. As a draft the location of stuff seems fine... as a final product, not so well.. but you know that already :D

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Thought I posted those 5 Card

Thought I posted those

5 Card hands. Draw 1 each turn (including starting turn). No attacks on the first turn.

Kevinct
Kevinct's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/26/2012
Just a Thought

Your game seems very interesting, kind of reminds me of nethacker tcg. I was just thinking maybe you could alter your win conditions so your game stands out against magic/yugioh etc. Maybe you both have different hardware pieces in play that must be attacked in order with your viruses, once you have reached the kernel or some main part and attack it you win?

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Kevinct wrote:Your game seems

Kevinct wrote:
Your game seems very interesting, kind of reminds me of nethacker tcg. I was just thinking maybe you could alter your win conditions so your game stands out against magic/yugioh etc. Maybe you both have different hardware pieces in play that must be attacked in order with your viruses, once you have reached the kernel or some main part and attack it you win?

If I could execute it properly, maybe I could have the win condition as when you take over (hack) the opponents deck/PC

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Thought about it a bit; Here

Thought about it a bit; Here is one idea draft;

What this new thought was each player starts off with Core's or Chip cards. That have some form of X Balance Value themselves and that you have to aim to decrease the BV of that Core to a negative value, at which point you control it. Your opponent can of course reclaim it by returning it to a PBV. Then basically, the game goes on like that, whoever either has the most Core's by the end of the game or has overtaken all of the Core's wins. (The Core's might have effects themselves, maybe even two, one active under the owner and the other active under the opponent, who then, keeping in line with the theme, has some influence over your opponent's actions.

Of course this is just one idea but I wonder if there is more I could look at.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
New Win Condition - System Core Cards

Win Condition Edit – Introducing System Core cards.

Each Player starts the game with 5 Pre-defined “System Core” cards. Each “System Core” card has an on and an off state. When a System Core you own is turned off, your opponent gains control of it. When a System Core you own is turned on, you re-gain control of it. When one Player controls all 10 System Core's, they win the game.

Each Card represents a different aspect of gameplay;

Player
Deck
Hand
Field
Discard Pile

Each aspect is further divided into two effects, one which is active while the owner controls it, the other only activate while the opponent controls it.

To gain control of an opponents System Core, you must target and succesfully damage it with a “Virus (NBV)” card. Your opponent may interrupt your attempt to damage a System Core with an “Anti-Virus (PBV)” Card.

To re-gain control of a System Core you own but your opponent controls, you must target and succesfully repair it with an Anti-Virus card. Your opponent may interrupt your attempt to repair a System Core with as Virus card.

Also, Creatures may no longer attack each other. They may only target System Cores.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Original Post updated with

Original Post updated with Revised Game Play. Also with more thematic terminology.

3XXXDDD
3XXXDDD's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2012
Two image templates added.

Two image templates added.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut