Just out of curiousity.
Who here is fan of Starcraft?
What do you like so much about the game?
Certain aspects?
Would you like to see something in the form of a board game?
There is a board game.
But does it suit your tastes?
What would you like to see different?
What I liked about the game was all the 3D Renderings and the storyline about how the Zerg corrupted Kerrigan and how the game's levels are designed to help ease a player into learning the game without requiring them to restart many times.
I think IF someone came up with a 1-Player (Solo) Campaign/Adventure style board and card game, I would be curious.
I've seen the current Board Game ... And it is BLAH! Not at all my taste: miniatures. Which minis are good in some games, I usually don't get interested in games that have miniatures. So the current game doesn't interest me at all.
From what I know of Board Games, I would definitely welcome a 1-Player campaign game that varies from one play to another. There can be several STORY ARCS depending on which "Hero" you take on (Could be like 5 Heroes from each Faction and there are 3 Faction: Humans, Zerg and Protoss). The First (1st) Edition could only focus on Humans and then the Second (2nd) Edition can focus on Zerg and then the third (3rd) Edition Protoss... And then have a wonderfully constructed expansions (Human vs. Zerg or Zerg vs. Protoss or Protoss vs. Humans) that's three (3) of them. And maybe some kind of SUPER EDITION which allows all three (3) Races to be involved.
That's what would interest me TBH. Great AI for the opponent(s) and deep story natured campaigns which evolve over time (As you progress further into a game).
Also having it be Scenario-Based so you can play "Scenario #1" complete it and then quit and come back at a later time and start "Scenario #2", etc.
Those are some of MY IDEAS as how to design a GOOD maybe GREAT game for the Starcraft Universe. Cheers!
Is if the 1-Player SOLO Campaign and adventures allow for more players in a CO-OP style of play. There could be rules based on the NUMBER of players which makes the game more "flexible" for allowing more players to jump in for one Scenario and the allow 2-Scenarios of Solo Play and then jump back into a 2-Players CO-OP scenario, etc.
The multiplayer games could be co-opetition too... Meaning you do COOPERATE but at the same time you vie for Resources and honors that go beyond just CO-OP game play... Maybe AWARDS and RANKS as you progress in one of the OVERALL Story-Arcs.
Something that doesn't require coaching either... Just co-opetition to see who can be the first player to BEAT the first "Scenario" (for example).
Anyhow these are just early thoughts. If more inspiration comes, I'll no doubt share it with all the designers. Best.
One thing that I KINDA like from Pokemon TCG is the "Reward Card" you earn whenever you defeat an OPPOSING Pokemon. But the way it is done in Pokemon is DUMB (at random)... Instead I would have some kind of REWARD system that allows you to INCLUDE more powerful cards not available at the beginning of Scenario #1 from each Hero's Story-Arc.
And so when you beat a Scenario you get to ADD to your "Deck" a more POWERFUL card (or maybe several, etc.) and makes you stronger for the NEXT Scenario.
Maybe like the Victor earns +3 Cards, the 2nd Player get +2 Cards and the 3rd Player get +1 Card... Again CO-OPETITION but also collaboration to defeat the opponent (AI).
That also would be VERY NEAT! Sincerely.
Winner of the Scenario = Earns +4 Cards, Chooses 2 Cards from the Draft.
2nd Place = Earns +3 Cards, Chooses 2 Cards from the Draft.
3rd Place = Earns +2 Cards. Drafts 1 card.
4th Place = Earns +1 Card. Drafts his/her only 1 card.
Repeat from Player #1 to Player #3...
This assumes as DRAFTING mechanic which just means that the Winner chooses 2 Cards from the Booster Pack to ADD to his Deck. And then we go through all the other players draft, and then the Winner drafts again (but only 1 card this time) and proceeds to the other players.
So you would BUY a BOOSTER Pack and RAID IT for the best cards in a DRAFT!
I could really picture something like THIS WORKING in STANDARD play (where one player pays for the Booster Pack and everyone choose the cards he/she wants for their deck...)
Clearly if you put together the Mechanics and the Technical Details... You could pitch the project to CMON. Of course they are heavy on Miniatures ... But that may not be a BAD thing ... Especially if they are the ones devising the Stories, Arcs and Characters... Ergo in control of the Scenarios and what tales are to be told.
It's hard being able to make a solid "mechanical" game and then also be capable of making it more of an adventure/campaign ... For those aspects, I'm sure you would be able to find a friend in a company such as CMON especially if most of the "mechanical" issues are resolved.
One thing I will say: CMON say they PARTNER with Game Designers to bring their VISIONS to reality. Aim high and BOLD ... And maybe you too might be one of their Brethren... Cheers!
And from what I KNOW, your "technical skills" for Game Analysis are GREAT. You also have a way with "Math" and "Balancing". You also have a way of being able to formulate EQUATIONS. I think with all that you've done, I would approach a company like CMON and explain that you have the "foundation" for some kind of War Game that could suit a "Modern or Futuristic" combat.
Wow them with MATH and EQUATIONS...
Just freaken show them an example EQUATION and break it down (to explain them). Like you've done with me on numerous occasions. You're also a good communicator and capable of TEACHING (you can say that you were a Math teacher in the past...) People love people who give to the world... Teachers do that.
I HONESTLY don't think that you will get the "StarCraft" franchise from Blizzard. But you can definitely find a company that can take your ideas and do what THEY do best: add stories, scenarios, campaigns, miniatures, art, etc.
Forget StarCraft... Do some kind of Modern/futuristic combat game.
IDK ... I can maybe help you find a cool name...
But that's as most as I am going to venture in your project. Remember to sometimes dial-it-down when you discuss matters with your partners. Yes, show the MATH, the EQUATIONS and the war game...
You'll need some kind of "niche"... Let me think about that too.
Again forget about StarCraft ... There is no way that CMON will license an IP from Blizzard especially if they already have a GAME.
This is only my opinion... But CMON look to partner with people/designers. And I think you've probably got something they might want to take a look at.
(Trying to think up of a theme... Would you be interested in MECHS???):
I've never seen a CMON Mech Game ... And FASA is defunct now:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/FASA
That's what I would bet on: MECHS. Do some research...! MechWarrior is Activision... So hands-off of that. But I'd research the FASA lore and maybe see if CMON would be interested in a Mech Game. That's my thoughts...
If there are other options, I'll let you know. Again just my opinion! Since they just MADE a Dune game (CMON):
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cmon/dune-war-for-arrakis
So your people and their interest made for a HOT NEW Game... Forget Dune, StarCraft ... And think about FASA + CMON BattleTech wargame. Could work!
So maybe if you can WOW them with some COOL MATH or an EQUATION and explain it... They might want to WORK with you to flesh out this amazing futuristic war combat game...
I'd seriously go FASA BattleTech... In that direction. I haven't SEEN a MECH game from CMON... Dune was something you were thinking about... So who knows maybe you're on to something good.
Cheers @Ramon.
I'm a huge Starcraft and Brood War fan...a very good friend bought me the original CDs back in 2000 when I moved back to the States from England, having been stationed overseas with the Air Force.
For me, I loved how each of the races played very differently; it's something I came to admire as both a board gamer and designer. The units and "buildings" all worked so well and captured the thematic aspects.
I've not played the board game, but something about the video game which is appealing is the fact that it moves so fast as an RTS, in a way you could never replicate in a board game. I'm a long time developer of military war games, and slow and methodical works well, as I tend to focus on strategic level titles (check out my latest with Compass Games, entitled The War: Pacific 1941-1945)
I wish you luck in your endeavor!
Cheers,
Joe
The video game: No, playing for like 30 minutes stress me so much that my hands are shaking.
The board game: Even if convoluted, I started to enjoy the game when playing solo. This is why I want to make a new game with my solo variant.
What is interesting in Star Craft I think is the large variety of unit with interesting RPS and multiple path to victory making you try different unit combination each game. The problem is designing such good RPS relationship. Still trying with my game.
I started working on a Dune game. Where Dune2 meets Dune2000 meets EbfD. And it would be a more of a public version.
Then my cousin asked me for a Starcraft version.
We where thinking about the board game. But he read the rules. And I already knew a bit about the game.
Trying to copy the thematic characteristics of each faction is a tough nut to crack. I discovered that I need to have much more health on each unit for balancing and regeneration purposes. Basicly: a zergling and marine cannot have 1 health.
Unless I use regeneration as a "shield". Which would also apply to the protoss shield.
***
@QuestCCG
I could even make a modular game. Where players combine a "body" with a "weapon" or two.
Mechs always had a place in my games alongside any weird alien.
But in a sense, if I read your posts correctly. You are saying to design a game that has a bit of a different theme. Which would make designing simpler. Since I would simply go for the minimal approach.
But what if I did that for a game like Starcraft?
What if I do not apply regeneration to the zerg and protoss?
What if I have marines costing the same as zerglings?
What if I have the zealot being a different armor and damage type?
It would not copy the existing game.
I only share "complete" work with a company. All that math, makes anyone dizzy. And if they discover I got a RPS in there. They are free to ask how the H I did that :)
***
@The Proffesor
You are naming the exact same things I like so much about Starcraft as well.
I absolutely loved the differences. And to be honest. In my proto-type game. I got them copied as true as possible.
Just because it feels so great.
Small is tier 2, Medium is tier 3 and large is tier 4.
I balanced out the subtraction armor with "average" health modifications.
Ok, enough of the technical details there.
Slow and methodical indeed. The proto-type version of any game is slow and sometimes takes weeks.
If any one of us wants to have a faster game. The thematic characteristics of each faction will be nerved a lot.
***
@larienna
I am busy playing Warcraft 2 for my YT channel. The human campaign after the dark portal is punishing me a lot. I can tell I have become slower.
And indeed, one cannot enjoy the game if the ai is really out there trying to kill you.
I even have to find out the cheese. And then tell the viewers about them.
So, if you really are troubled, reduce the game speed.
Starcraft is relatively easy compared to Warcraft 2.
But it can be very enjoyable if you don't loose units and camp. While slowly reducing the enemy forces. In Starcraft, you can play hunger games with your enemies. Much more than in Warcraft 2.
And yes, the variation in units is awesome. In C&C games, you got these nessesary RPS choices.
But in Starcraft, the RPS has been reduced a lot. So that natural RPS takes place. And you need more different units than just those that are good in defending.
Balancing the variation is something that I am still working on. See my topic about Strategy Points.
If I can fix that. I am good to go 100% into unit design.
Don't worry, I am getting stressed out at the slowest speed. I would personally need multiple copies of myself to play this game, one for every base, and one for every mobile army.
------------------------------------------------------
There was a mention of unit tier. I had some thought for my game about it. One of the problem with Star Craft the board game was that some units arrived very late to the game making it very hard to have a chance to use it. Which is not fun.
But I understand that units are like a technological progression, you want to reward players for building better units like if you designed a new tech. But I did not want to have too much dependencies.
So I first tried to flat out the unit tree. You have 4 infantry and 4 vehicle accessible right at the start of the game. The positive is that it increases possible unit permutation on game start, the downside is that new units does not make you stronger, only more versatile.
So then I though maybe I could make make 2 infantry and 2 vehicle more expansive and more powerful, but still available at the start. So you can have it if you are willing to pay the price, but you are more likely willing to start with the cheap units.
Right now there is tech upgrade that improves unit by giving it better equipment, but it's limited use and situational. So in order to have a sense of progression, I am considering making each 8 unit upgradable to a elite version. Either you can build elite directly or it a 2 step process. Those elite version would be more limited in numbers. They should retains the same abilities as the original but only have better stats.
But I understand that units are like a technological progression, you want to reward players for building better units like if you designed a new tech. But I did not want to have too much dependencies.
Upgrades...
I think that having access to all units and structures is a good thing for a board game.
Or at least a second tier, that any 2nd tier can be chosen to be researched. And then used as well.
But another thing that is possible is having upgrades for existing units. While reaching the maximum upgrade might be the next issue... You could allow infinite upgrades?
But this is entirely depending on the game design.
But what if I did that for a game like Starcraft?
What if I do not apply regeneration to the zerg and protoss?
What if I have marines costing the same as zerglings?
What if I have the zealot being a different armor and damage type?
It would not copy the existing game.
...
I only share "complete" work with a company. All that math, makes anyone dizzy. And if they discover I got a RPS in there. They are free to ask how the H I did that :)
I think the problem with games that require a specific FRANCHISE like StarCraft, require that the IP OWNER agrees to the project. If you are working with a COMPANY like CMON, they're already capable of generating characters, stories and universes around ANY game design...
Your MAIN problem is that there is ALREADY a "StarCraft" Board Game.
Understand that. Blizzard will NOT re-issue another license even to a LARGE company like CMON because they ALREADY HAVE A GAME based on "StarCraft".
You may not like it, you may think you can do better, different, etc. But the HARD FACT is that there is a "StarCraft" Board Game OUT-THERE! That's sufficient for any franchiser to say: "Sorry we already have a licensed game."
AND what does this mean???
You CAN'T think like a Game Designer. You need to think like a Business Person and understand that you WON'T get that IP License for the "StarCraft" franchise because someone already MADE A DEAL for it.
You can think ALL you want how cool and better you can make it... But you will only be wasting all your time, because there can be no BUSINESS DEAL. Don't try X-COM, they too already have a BOARD GAME. Aliens does too: Ravensburger has an IP License.
I would try to lean towards your OWN concept... All the Popular Franchises are already involved in Board Games (or in your case a War Game)... I thought Mech would be good... But it looks like the FASA IP for BattleTech has already been used. (Sorry my BAD... I didn't google enough).
All I am saying is that it will be difficult to find a Franchise which is NOT being used for SOME kind of "Board Game".
I wish you luck. I personally would not waste time on a project that requires a specific IP because it honestly could be a waste of time. So your game is better, they already have a "Board Game"... Is going to be the business position. No matter how GREAT your game is.
It's not about you, it's about how OTHER DEALS were made. Sorry I thought FASA would be good... But apparently they are owned by Microsoft. So maybe TRYING to use the BattleTech IP of mechs without the "BattleTech" NAME... Could be one avenue. Sincerely.
Well, 2 people in the group would like to see a Starcraft version.
Might as well keep the proto-type version.
No need to force to design a public version.
We already know.
If you want to do it FOR FUN... Well the go ahead and design the game to be a War Game version of "StarCraft"...
Just a question of goals and priorities.
I'm different in that I pursue my design goals to be able to become a Game Designer with not only a few games published ... But being able to work as a Game Designer... These last 10 years have been GRAND! But I'm worried that if none of my designs "stick" ... I don't know what I will be forced to do...
Let's not think about that... I have a lot of "gifts" and "talents", I simply need to ensure that I work with the right people to help realize some more of my projects. That's my PRIORITY in LIFE: getting more published games. SALES.
I don't try to project this onto others... Because like yourself it may merely be for the FUN of it. I unfortunately have bills too, expenses to pay ... So all my designs are SERIOUS... And I'm trying to get something working after the HUGE loss that was/is TradeWorlds.
Cheers!
Will the game ever be shipped?
The short answer is YES, once all the ISSUES have been dealt with.
The longer and more detailed answer you will find in your Personal Messages (PM). I didn't want to discuss the entirety of what is happening online with everyone because the information that I've detailed is private and should remain confidential.
But I did do some explaining of what is going on and how come it is taking us more time to get things moving again.
Cheers!
Like me, you can do a parody of it. Or thematic ripoff. Or get back to the source material like Star Ship trooper.
@larienna
I used to draw myself tanks and soldiers with weaponry that existing RTS games didn't contain. And yes, these would be a bit of a parodie.
It would be original though.
- A tank with 3 barrels (A heavier tank from C&C ra)
- A missile soldier (shoots the missile from the MRLS from C&C td)
- The "Starship troopers" nuclear grenadier.
- A set of tanks that have increasing attack range. The whole list has synergy with itself.
- Some Unreal Tournament weapons in a tank form. A Ripper Tank would be funny. Although the board game version needs a lot of imagination.
Same goes for the Bio Rifle Tank, Shock Rifle Tank, Pulse Gun Tank, Flak Cannon Tank and the Sniper Tank... The enforcer tank, minigun tank and the eightball tank did manage to be produced in some RTS games...
There are some unit designs that are not used yet. But then I will be going C&C style. Which is not the topic here. Maybe change the title...
Ah, never mind, the topic is going. :)
I played an extendable card game this weekend called Wartide which seemed heavily influenced by Starcraft with 3 factions/races that pretty closely resembled Zerg, Terran and Protoss. You may want to check it out:
https://www.wartidecardgame.com/
Strangely, it's not yet on BGG. A game that far in the development should be listed.
I like how the very first soldier card only has ones.
I wonder what kind of RPS it has though.
There isn't much information on the internet, except for the official website.
One has to purchase in order to know more.
The shop is currently closed though.
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (0) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
Doesn't suit my tastes either.
The risk value is too low.
The variation is also too low.
I think that if I would work on a board game that uses Starcraft as a reference. I would certainly try to stay close to the original unit designs as possible.
I would try to turn it into a wargame.
With miniatures.
I already can see the zerglings running across the map, reaching that dragoon while 1 or 2 died along the way. And the remaining ones deal sufficient damage that the dragoon dies as well.
Maybe I should go for it.