Skip to Content
 

Is this a way to distribute cards in a game?

4 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Game design A

Where each card has different costs, but the design and numbers are very simple. Only having defence and attack numbers plus some extra function tekst.

Using the following mechanic:

Part A, option 1:
Each turn, you grab 4 cards and you discard 2.
2 will go to your hand.
And each round, you may play as many cards as you have in your hand.
During the game, the 4 cards might increase to 6, 8 etc. And the discarding follows with 3, 4 etc.
Effectively increasing the number of cards that go to your hand.

Part A, option 2:
Each turn, you grab 2 cards and you discard 1.
1 will go to your hand.
And each round, you may play as many cards as you have in your hand.
During the game, the 2 cards might increase to 3, 4 etc. And the discarding follows with 2, 3 etc.
Effectively keeping the number of cards at just 1 that goes to your hand.

Part B:
Now, when you play a card, you can pay the energy costs as many times as possible. (Depending on your energy pool and production pool). Let's say, an unit costs 4 energy and you can produce 12 energy. Then you can have 3 of these. You tap the energy, place the card and place 3 counters on it.

You cannot do this again until you grab the same card. With the new card. Now you have a choice:
- You play the card as a different "squad". They can protect something else. Placement goes exactly as the first card. The number of these cards decrease in the deck.
- Or you increase the counters on the previous card. After playing the second card, you put this back at the bottom of the deck. Meaning you can pick it again in the future.

---> The down side to this design is that even though the cards are simple. You have to start calculating your attack strenght by counting counters etc. There is no simplification to this in the game. :(
---> Up side would be that there is a planning in your strategy. Eventually some players might get stuck buying the same unit over and over again. While another player

Number of cards is 4 for each unit?
60 cards in total?
Or keep this customized for each unit and the total deck?

***

Game design B

Each card is worth the same. People don't have to count any more. All they have to do now is compare the value's.

The energy cards are simpler. However, the unit cards get a bit more complicated.

Would it be ok if cards have multiple damage types?
And how many would be ok?
I find 3 to low? 5 would be about right? Perhaps 7?

I can make the list very long, or very small. This only occurs in game design B. And the game would be a one time only design. No addons are possible.

Maybe I should make combination numbers. But then we get the player to multiply again. And I don't want them to calculate.

With this design, 4 of each again, 60 in the deck.

***

help?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Discarding

I'd recommend option B for drawing cards.

I'd also suggest that you hold off from discarding until the end of the player's turn. I have two reasons to suggest this:
- It seems like a LOT of down-time for the rest of the players. Having multiple cards to discard before doing anything on a turn seems rife with potential for analysis paralysis.
- Discarding cards at the end of a turn seems a suitable way to signify the end of an active player's turn.

EDIT: Another option - again, in my view it would be important to limit down-time - would be to have a Drawing Phase for all players at once, in turn order. Then players discard their requisite cards all at the same time, then proceed in turn order in purchasing/playing units.

/EDIT

Additionally, on the next player's turn, you may want to allow them to draw a single card from the face-up discard pile instead of multiple cards from the draw deck. A player's strategy may benefit from a card a previous player discards at the end of their turn.

I would also prefer the first option (Game Design A, perhaps?) for part B. It allows for more units overall, if I understand it correctly. Of course, it would also depend on how quickly the players cycle through the draw deck.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thanks for answering, but it

Thanks for answering, but it isn't clear to me what you would suggest. You're talking about option B while I have part B and design B.

I have

Game design A and B
Where there is a difference in the cards. The core of the game if you will.

Part A has option 1 and 2
Where there is a difference in picking cards, discarding and putting cards in your hand.

Part B
Normally players play each card one time. But here we have part B explained IF Game design A is used.
With game design B, Part B doesn't exist.

***

Your suggestion of discarding at the end of the turn doesn't help. Players need to keep a minimum in their hand. Since it would be fair for all to discard the same amount of cards.

Further, only cards that are drawn should be discarded. The hand stays as it is. You are only to add new cards.

The hand can become the deck in this game. Which contains a valid strategy if a player is winning or a sign that the player is loosing. With a lot of cards, a lot of options are open. See it as a RPS, where you pick an P, then an S and eventually a R. And your hand gives you all options. (Although I have multiple RPS systems combined, so you need to have at least 9 cards before all "best" options are open)

If the deck is empty, the deck is empty. This is not a win or loose condition.

***

This game is turn based. So drawing at the same time... nahhh, some kids like to cheat and pick more cards while no one is looking.

***

There is no discard pile. Cards that are used or beaten go back into the deck. At the bottom.
Even a player with a good memory is allowed to have an advantage here.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
RPS systems

Well, if I am to go with game design B. I should be going with a fixed RPS system instead of a continuous one. Since it is a fixed amount of numbers that I can put on a card.

I want to keep things simple and understandable for players. Thus each card needs to get a table with numbers???

Would that do, a table on each card?
I think it would look stupid. And with fights with multiple units, it would only create confusion.
Unless I insert a rule of OVERKILL. Where 6 indeed beats 3, but the remaining damage is discarded.

It would go different than in MtG where 6 would be divided amongst 2 cards with 3.

In MtG you have only one damage and defence number. In my game you would have 15 (still deciding) different damage value's while still having only 1 defence value. Although each defence value has a different type.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Here it comes

Ok, I am done with play testing.
It is obvious to me now what I should do.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L0AFjZ5WxMA/TL2zIxTslxI/AAAAAAAAAoM/CmJ4bbsJ1h...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut