Skip to Content
 

Crystal Heroes: New stats

Well I have decided on SIX (6) distinct stats that will be used by the game. Previously there was only ONE (1) stat: Crystal power (or C).

Now I have changed it to six (6) stats:

  • [STR] = Strength
  • [DEX] = Dexterity
  • [INT] = Intelligence
  • [CON] = Constitution
  • [CHA] = Charisma
  • [WIS] = Wisdom

Each card will have ONE (1) stat and it will vary per Hero.

There are now FIVE (5) operators, I have added "Modulo" (%) and changed to "Division" (/) instead of the weird "special" OR, which was a 2x multiplier (|).

I am still working on the "goal" per game.

Originally it was to get the highest possible score - but this generally favors one set of operators and operands. I want something more variable. How this is done (to decide the variable score) is still TBD...

I'm sort of working/thinking of this as I await the "Tradewars - Homeworld" copies to reach me... Once they do, I will mail them out to all the people who are interested in the game... And hopefully get some "designer" input from some of the designer-friends that want to have a closer look at the game!

So this is a small update - as I ponder more about "Crystal Heroes" ...

Comments

So that is why I didn't hear

So that is why I didn't hear about the game any more. You didn't receive the copies yet.

You know, the concept about calculating is cool. But somehow I have the feeling that players won't like the game. But that is my feeling.

Gotta agree with X3M

Gotta agree with X3M here.

What kind of target audience do you aim at?

More thought required

X3M wrote:
So that is why I didn't hear about the game any more. You didn't receive the copies yet.

Don't worry Ramon, when I get the copies of the game, I will inform you of the cost for overseas shipping. As per our understanding you agreed to pay for the shipping and I would comp you a couple copies of the game. But it looks as if the Game Sets will be stranded in the USA until some time AFTER 4 October. Joe will be sending them once he is back home - he is elsewhere in the USA on business... So I'll get back to you about "Tradewars - Homeworld" in a few weeks.

X3M wrote:
You know, the concept about calculating is cool. But somehow I have the feeling that players won't like the game. But that is my feeling.

Actually I'm the biggest "critic" of my designs. If I find something to simple or plain boring... I scrap the idea and work on something else. But the "calculating" (as you put it) is pretty neat. The only problem I have now is knowing how players WIN.

I'm actually stuck with this... Because if it's always the player with the MOST points who wins, it makes the game too predictable: players will often re-use the same tactic as previously and favor certain operators. I'm trying to think about how the "score" can be variable or random each time the game is played.

In a random situation, players would need to score "X" points or be the nearest to "X" points to win.

This doesn't introduce any luck - again pure strategy based on the operators and operands used.

@elkobold: I design games that I enjoy playing. So if I enjoy it, others may enjoy it too. If the game sucks, I usually pull the plug and try something else. But this version of the game has "potential". Right now, as I mentioned, the main concern is varying the winning condition.

Why? Well it would force players to use different cards for difference scores. Take for example having the highest possible score. Use "x" (Multiplication) and use "+" (Addition). "-" (Subtraction), "/" (Division) and "%" (Modulo) all LOWER the score - so you would never want to use these...

But if the victory condition could "vary"... You would probably need to use these other operators to try to be nearest to that possible score.

And also any "STATIC" victory goal is the same as the highest score. You would just use a different set of operators, if say the victory goal was "closest to 0"...

Anyhow I need to think about it further...

What if you mix in numbers

What if you mix in numbers with the operators. And they are single cards?
Thus a card will contain either a number. Or an operator.

Then players play a card 1 by 1. Each player tries to get the highest score still. But the fun part will be that you can over rule what has already been played. Thus putting a / on top of a x of your opponent would yield devastating results for your opponent.
And if the formula isn't completed. Every part that doesn't take part is discarded. Also the highest numbers are discarded.

2 player example game:
A and B pick 7 cards.
A has 2 5 8 + + - x
B has 1 5 6 9 - x /

Now, if it is a game where you may play only 3 cards. Thus the only valid ones right now are 2 numbers with one operator. The game already has tactics. You don't know what the opponent has.
A plays 8. (now A is ahead)
B plays 9. (now B is ahead)
A plays x.
B plays 6. (which means that if the game ends, 9 is discarded.
A plays 2, on top of the 9 of B.
B plays 1, on top of the 8 of A.

The end results are:
A has 1(8) and x.
B has 2(9) and 6.
The x is discarded for A. And the 6 is discarded for B. However, B has 2 points and wins.

I am sure that you can see plenty of other outcomes with just these 2 pair of 7 cards.

***

Of course, you can design a second layer of game play to it by adding other rules like the 6 stats. But the core should be basic and easy to learn, yet complex in tactics.

For someone to know if he'll

For someone to know if he'll enjoy your game or not, he must try it first, right?

Until then, it will be judged based on how it looks/sounds.

I know that I (as a player) probably wouldn't play a fantasy heroes representing math operations card game.

The theme doesn't feel right for the gimmick.

Maybe if it was a cyberpunk hacking game, where players are racing for who will be the first to match 3 out of 5 target numbers to crack the opponent's network security or something along those lines.

But fantasy and math... simply doesn't click.

Millions can't be wrong!

ElKobold wrote:
But fantasy and math... simply doesn't click.

If that's how you feel, well you are entitled to your opinion. Just to say the game is based on an old online game which had "millions" of players. It had multiplication, addition and subtraction... But the computer handled all the calculations - and this is probably why literally "millions" of people played: because the math was all computed by the computer.

In the card game version, I've attempted to create a different "feel". With Melee and Support units (the online game had none of this - just cards you play), this creates a battle front between the two sides (and there are combat rules as designated by the RPS-9). That too did not exist (no RPS at all).

Mathematics and calculations are not theme restrictive, the original game was about "comic heroes" (Superman, Powerpuff Girls, Green Lantern, Samurai Jack, Scooby Doo, etc.) I'm sort of "re-skinning" the theme to fit "fantasy heroes" and giving an overall face-lift to the mechanics such that they require LESS computation. While providing more depth to the "strategy" used to win the game.

That's why I think a "variable" win condition is important... It will force players to use their whole deck as wisely as possible for each game they play.

The online game was decided by whomever had the higher point total.

I've already explained why this won't work for the card game. Actually truth be known, in the online game once you knew what cards could do multiplication and addition, you would "generally" play the same cards each time you played against a new opponent. In that way, the online game was "dumb"... But millions of people played it. It was very popular.

So I think it could work for "fantasy heroes" as well... Especially if the game offered deeper strategy than just always using the same "combos" to try to defeat your opponent.

Gwent is in the same spirit ... kind of (?)

http://www.gwentdb.com/

But again calculation are handled by the computer. And it's an online video game too...

While I am trying to design a "Micro Card Game" with 12 cards only. Gwent has more cards (I believe)...

If you explore Gwent, you'll get the "feeling" for the TYPE of Card Game I am designing. Just coincidence since I found Gwent a month ago... I have been working on the "Micro CCG" concept for years now.

Gwent has three (3) rows, "Crystal Heroes" only has two (2) rows (Melee and Support).

I am also exploring "Light" vs. "Dark" cards

It's possible to "transform" a score from a "positive" value to a "negative" value using subtraction, division and modulo. This is where I am trying to create a difference between "Light" cards (+) and "Dark" cards (-).

If scoring is relative to a RANDOM value for each game, it would be cool if that value could be positive OR negative!

Again you can do it using subtraction and a negative multiplier - but it would be cool if you just plain had "Dark" Crystal cards which are negative by their very nature...

So the more I add, the more it comes down to building (off-line) your deck to be able to handle a few situations that allow a player to hopefully come on top of his opponent. Of course the more I add, I also need to be certain they actually work and the result is that more playtesting will be required for each "add-on".

Cheers!

Playing around with Polyhedral dice

There is another idea I am "exploring" for Mana: polyhedral dice.

If I have five (5) stats, players may roll all five (5) polyhedral dice and that determines the TOTAL amount of Mana each stat may have...

This is "real cool" because BOTH players have the SAME limits - but it's a bit more flexible than say a single number (like 5 Mana per player).

Again this diverges play and adds more depth to the strategy. It's not at all "luck-based" because instead of being static another component (Mana in this case) becomes DYNAMIC adding replayability.

Each polyhedral dice can be a different color:

  1. [STR] = Red > D12
  2. [CON] = Orange > D10
  3. [DEX] = Yellow > D8
  4. [WIS] = Green > D6
  5. [INT] = Blue > D4

I could of course explore 2x each dice with some "Warlord" effects like re-rolling or adding an additional dice, etc.

Seriously opens up a big amount of versatility...

The core mechanic of gwent is

The core mechanic of gwent is auction. Sort of.

At its heart it's a simple game where you have a limited supply of cards and have to decide which two of the three rounds you intent to win, based on the cards your opponent plays.

It's not about mathematical operators it's about when to commit and when to let go.

If you take the 3-round system out of Gwent, it would be a bland boring game.

And so is my game kind of "auction" too...

In the early stage you are drafting your "battlefield".

You get three (3) cards. You must decide if you want to play all three (3) cards, or play two (2) and keep one for the next stage or discard and replenish to three (3) cards during the next stage. There are three (3) stages.

Keeping cards means that you will not exhaust your deck (9 cards) + 1 reserve...

Ultimately your "formula" will depend on the seven (7) cards you selected during the three "stages" of the drafting...

That's why I say "in spirit" it is similar to Gwent.

(Insofar that you draft cards for your side of the battlefield and that there are stats associated with each of the cards themselves... And special abilities)...

I owe the "reserve" to @stevebarkeruk

We were saying that playing the "Warlord" (Multiplier) gave you an advantage and that 1 in 3 games would be ruined if either player could not play this card. It was too high (failure rate)... So Steve proposed that what if you could play the card whenever you wanted. So I created a 1 card "reserve" in which you can put any card you like.

This was of course when the goal was to get the "highest" possible score.

Not sure how I will "conceive" of a variable (somewhat) random score to match. So far my only ideas are that given a value "X", the player closest to that value wins the game... And you can play best three out of five... Within 30 minutes.

Got to think about it some more...

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