Skip to Content

A slick little combat game 15-30 minutes. Try it out?

9 replies [Last post]
Salamosam
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2010

I need some help with a 2 player combat card game I made called Combat Cards. It's got some mechanics you haven't seen before. Steal them! ...if you dare. Better yet, try it out and let me know what you think.
http://drop.io/salamosam.
Cheers!

scifiantihero
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2009
Someone . . .

. . . click on that, then tell me if it's a cardgame or a virus.

Thanks!

:D

truekid games
truekid games's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/29/2008
It's the rules to a game-

It's the rules to a game- essentially a quasi-trick-taking game. (i googled the drop.io site before clicking)

Some of the concepts are good, though my concerns are that the rules are a little... swirly for the overall "weight" of the game. More importantly, it seems like the outcome becomes deterministic after the first couple of combos are played- meaning either player could, after seeing what his opponent had selected, do a little math and determine the optimal path to take until game-end... and there aren't enough different possibilities (not enough different cards, or ways to play them) to prevent that, even if a player doesn't know the 5th card in someone's hand. Greater variance in card abilities, or adding a SMALL luck factor somewhere would help mitigate this.

Jean Of mArc
Jean Of mArc's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2010
Hey Salamosam, Thanks for

Hey Salamosam,

Thanks for sharing your game with us!! I haven't played it yet, since I only just read over the rules, but it DOES look interesting!! I like your usage of time, and how the cards played show the response over the same amount of time. As I was reading the rules, I could get a good sense of how this system would represent an actual fight taking place. For example, discarding cards when hit makes sense, because as you get beaten on you get weaker and weaker.

I have to agree with the comments, though, the the game could potentially be a bit too automatic, without any thinking about what you should do next... You could just calculate the best moves and keep going from there. It would be nice if there were a little more variety in the cards and a little luck, as previously pointed out.

Good work though, I think it looks like it could be fun. I especially like that when time is neutral, the first player to play a card has the initiative.

Salamosam
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2010
Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback folks!

Jean, I'm glad you like the initiative-taking initiative rule. I encountered some resistance to that on my end, but I like the way that puts the pressure on. As for your and others' comments about the deterministic nature of the game, well, yes, I agree. Ideally the play would be fast and loose, and players would not take the time to see things through to the end. For my part, doing that kind of calculation mentally is unpleasant and I would rather play a card and take my chances. It may be possible to add an incentive to make things play faster to discourage calculation; I'll give it some thought. Honestly, however, in the games I have played, I was surprised by who won the game, i.e. the depth of my calculation wasn't enough to predict the outcome.

My main worry, and this is tied in with the above point, is that there is a single strategy that bests all others. Can someone calculate out the possible outcomes and come up with a sure-fire winner? If so, then, it's a dud.

I'm hoping that once you folks actually try it out (and I hope you will), you'll find that the interaction between time and range allows for enough strategic complexity.

More later, especially on the possibility of adding a random element. I'm on the move right now.

Cheers!

Salamosam
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2010
Extending the game as it is

So, the rules as they are currently written up is a pared-down version of the original concept. Originally, my intent was to design a game that represented the development of a fighter over time, from battle to battle. I tried a few prototypes, and had the most success with what you see now: simple rules and mechanics, allowing for complex interaction between cards and a certain amount of strategy on the part of the players.

However, if it is agreed that the game could benefit from something else, something more, then there are two ideas that I'll put forward:

1. Weapons - by mucking around with the ranges and tying it to damage, it should be possible to mimic different hand-to-hand weapons. For example, a long sword might do more damage at a range of 5 and 6 and be completely ineffective at 3 or less, while a dagger works best at ranges 1 and 2 and can't reach beyond 6. This way, players will be trying to shift the battle in different directions. Could work really well.

2. Persistence - By allowing players to create new attack and defense cards, under strict limitations, and by adding in Skill Points to track their ability to do so, the game becomes a model of a fighter's development, from beginner to expert. Regardless of experience, players would still start with the same number of cards in hand, but a more advanced fighter would have these created cards available in their deck, which they could draw from (this introduces the random element), which extends their health and also could convey some new ability, such as moving two spaces at once (a charge or jump), reducing the time of a combo by two instead of one, picking up a card more quickly, etc.

I'm most excited about the second option. What do you folks think?

Jean Of mArc
Jean Of mArc's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2010
Interesting...

Hey Salamosam,

Thanks again for sharing! As for your ideas, I think they both could work, potentially. I think that adding weapons might be logically odd, since if they had a bunch of weapons, their combo would be to attack with a sword, then a dagger, then punch? Logically I don't know how someone could effectively pull that off... The second idea sounds very interesting though, as long as the limitations were well-defined and easy to follow when creating their own cards. If it had things like back-flips, round-house kicks and such, it could be really cool to try and visualize the fight while playing. It adds a bit of luck as to what will be drawn next, and more variety makes everything less predictable. Also, players will have to make sure to balance attack and defense, since if they only do attack they will be hit by the enemy everytime.

Please let us see any game updates!

Salamosam
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2010
Thanks for the suggestions! I

Thanks for the suggestions! I think we're on the same page regarding the persistence aspect. The deck would grow, but players would have to balance their deck so that they get a proper amount of attacks and defense. But regarding weapons, the idea is that each player would have one weapon, perhaps a dagger or a sword (but what about trident & net?!) and you'd stick with that weapon for the whole match. It would be one deck vs. another. Combining the two ideas, you'd see players slowly adding different moves to their deck, developing a fighting style according to what weapon they've chosen, and then honing their skills so that they have access to the right cards when needed.

The challenge as a developer is to make sure that players can create cards that have an appropriate in-game effect, yet remain balanced such that no one strategy is unbeatable. I've got some ideas: basically, forcing the player to advance their deck one card at a time, that is, the initial cards, "punch: damage 1" would move to "punch: damage 2", or even "punch: damage 1 plus a 1d6 chance for +1" for really slow development. New cards would be duplicates of the original cards. So the player would slowly advance, bringing each maneuver up a bit at a time.

Salamosam
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2010
I posted a .pdf of the card

I posted a .pdf of the card list. Very very basic, but it ensures that everybody is on the same page. http://drop.io/salamosam.

DogBoy
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2009
Rules Rewriting

Hi,
Haven't tried playing it yet. But it looks like the rules could be rewritten more simply.
In particular, you have a slightly confusing time discount for combos. This could be written instead as:

Each punch costs 1+Range time.
Each kick costs 2+Range time.
Each block costs 4 time.
Just taking your turn costs an additional 1 time, regardless of how many cards you play.

Also, it looks like using tracks might be easier than using time and range tokens.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut