Skip to Content

Designing Attributes

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

So, how does one design attributes for a card game?

I have had thoughts about this. But came to a conclusion which would work best for designing a card game.

First.
You need to make sure your vanilla game is finished.

Second.
You then start altering the rules of your vanilla game when an attribute is named. But instead of thinking of a name. You instead think of how the rules can be changed.

Third.
Make sure that when a rule is changed for that particular card. It can be described in one sentence. Maybe 2 if really needed. But if you have a list of rules for one attribute. Maybe you can split them up.

Fourth.
Balancing? Make sure you have a good feel of how to balance the attribute. I personally always have a reasoning for a simple mathimatical adjustment. For example, a defender will have a cheaper cost based on the fact it has less attacking damage. And a defence, will simply not be able to return (retreat) back to the hand once placed on the table.

Of course, looking at other games for inspiration and idea's is always a good idea. But don't go stealystealy ok?

As unwritten rule for my own game. Attributes should not depend on other attributes. 2 exceptions in my case are: air/anti-air, burrowed/sweeper. These will be added in pairs.

So, is this a way to go?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Different Approach, Same Goal

X3M wrote:
Second.
You then start altering the rules of your vanilla game when an attribute is named. But instead of thinking of a name. You instead think of how the rules can be changed.
This seems a completely reasonable way to go about creating card abilities, attributes, and variations.

Another way to approach it is to consider what you are trying to simulate, and see what kind of rules adaptations can support and reinforce that kind of simulation. This would be more of a theme-first approach, as opposed to a mathematics- or rules-first approach, and may be useful depending on the type of game you're trying to make.

It also seems to me like the approach you're describing is effective for duel games or games with a lot of back-and-forth, "take that" action. In your last example, you describe varieties of military units. So is it fair to assume that with this design plan you're striving to design games that feature/promote direct conflict?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote: It

let-off studios wrote:

It also seems to me like the approach you're describing is effective for duel games or games with a lot of back-and-forth, "take that" action. In your last example, you describe varieties of military units. So is it fair to assume that with this design plan you're striving to design games that feature/promote direct conflict?

Absolutely.

Direct combat is my starting point.

The simplest of attributes will modify the cards effectivness in certain situations.

Examples are:
- Some cards fire later, thus could be killed prior. But do more damage if they survive till that point.
- Some cards fire sooner, thus could kill something before it would be able to shoot back.
- Some cards can avoid 1 opponent completely. Practically speaking, weak against weak cards, strong against strong cards.
- One game mechanic allows cards to take cover behind other cards. But there are cards overruling this rule.

The more Attributes I think of, the more complex they can become.
But my primairy concern with this approach is to have the capability to combine attributes.

Fast Projectile in combination with Artillery would allow a card to snipe an enemy in the support lines. Before this enemy can do massive damage.

***

In regards of theme first approach. I am bad at this. Because i was planning to have modern combat being combined with sci-fi, med-evil AND magic stuff.

Not sure yet if I use a humor approach or not.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
So is my understanding is correct?!

X3M wrote:
In regards of theme first approach. I am bad at this. Because i was planning to have modern combat being combined with sci-fi, med-evil AND magic stuff.

Not sure yet if I use a humor approach or not.

Funny... Not like I am doing something "exactly" similar... ARCH is a blend of Manga and Robotics. A bit like Yu-Gi-Oh! But I was not appreciative of the identical style. Because I don't really like the Yu-Gi-Oh! style ... Just the fact that they blend the two styles together (blending not actual artwork/style).

So ARCH is part Sci-Fi (Robotic/Technology), Medieval (Knights, Archers) and Fantasy (Wizards, Orcs, Dragons). So yeah kinda in the same vein but not for comedic value. I actually just want more "techno" feel to the fusion of Fantasy and Robotics.

It's kinda strange we are on two (2) separate design, which are 100% different, but yet we are drawing on the same sources of inspiration. I guess there isn't an "infinite" amount of sources (I guess). Just like the Keywords we were discussing on Discord!

In any event best of luck with this card game. I see you have some cool ideas too... Faster, slower units, etc. All very novel concepts!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not really original

The list of attributes is exhausted already.

The game itself doesn't have much rules.
Except for where cards are positioned.
And where the attacks commence.

I am finalizing the attributes.
Then I will go through them a couple of times.
Probably going to scrap some.

The attributes will be mostly very logical.

Example

The game has 2 forces; attackers and defenders.
The game has 2 lines for each force; front line and support line.
Cards move to the attackers, then the next round to the defenders front line, then back to the hand if forced or to the defenders support line.

The possible attributes:
[Attacker] Does extra damage in the attacking force.
[Defender] Does extra damage in the defending force.
[Offense] Has more armor in the attacking force.
[Defense] Has more armor in the defending force.

[Stuck] Will be the buildings that can't move, once placed.
But I am not sure about this yet. Because how to get them in the defending force??
[Haste] Can be placed in the defending force right away.

[Stuck]+[Haste] could be placed in the defending force and stay there.

But this sounds counter intuitive, right?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Attribute options

X3M wrote:
The possible attributes:

[Attacker] Does extra damage in the attacking force.
[Defender] Does extra damage in the defending force.
[Offense] Has more armor in the attacking force.
[Defense] Has more armor in the defending force.

My suggestions are:

[Attacker] Does extra damage in the attacking force.
[Defender] Does extra damage in the defending force.
[Toughness] Has more armor in the attack force.
[Resistance] has more armor in the defending force.

Let me know what you think. I think these sound better and are more relevant... To what you are "describing". Cheers!

Note #1: A couple other details:

[Rush] instead of haste ... sounds better for orders and buildings.
[Fixed] instead of stuck ... sounds better for stationary buildings.

Again let me know what you think... As always if you don't like these, you can ignore my suggestions... But I do think they are a bit more understandable that "Offense/Defense" and "Stuck/Haste"...

[Rush] + [Fixed] would be a defensive building. Sounds good to me.

Best!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
English

Still my second language. I am going to correct the words now. Before I forget.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
3 Failing attributes

There are 3 attributes failing.
Because in normal RTS, they would be in combination with other attributes, having their effect. But those would be numbers.

Slow, Fixed and Outranged.

In RTS games:
A melee that is slow, is often outranged.
Fixed and has melee or is normal, can also be outranged.

As attributes that have single explanations. This doesn't work.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Are you thinking about "Bunkers"???

X3M wrote:
Slow, Fixed and Outranged.

In RTS games:

A melee that is slow, is often outranged.
Fixed and has melee or is normal, can also be outranged.

Yes a "slow" melee makes sense that OFTEN that unit is "outranged". But a "fixed" which is a building, doesn't have any "attack" (melee or ranged) unless it is like a "bunker" where you can put units INTO it. And when you do this... in some instances the units inside the "bunker" get a ranged attack... Or a bonus ranged attack (like a Sniper Attack) in some kind of "tower".

I don't understand what you mean by:

X3M wrote:
As attributes that have single explanations. This doesn't work.

What is it that "doesn't work"???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Only one effect

An attribute should have only 1 effect.
Have no dependency on other attributes unless it is a mirror that creates a RPS.

Also, if I where to fix the problem. I would work with levels again for movement and weapon range. And the thing is. The health:damage ratio is 1. The board is simply 4 parts. Anyway, single digit value's would be the past. And dividing all value's by a factor is not my thing.

Sure I could have a slow card move 1 field at a time. Perhaps having it from the frontline go to the back. Perhaps even change the rules, that players start by building up a defence force first. Starting with support line. Then have the cards move around.

Deck
to
Defence, support AND Defence, front
to
Offence, support
to
Offence, front
to
Retreating back to Deck

[Fixed]
Walls would never be able to go to the Offence, nor would other defencive buildings.
[Slow]
Would walk the path slowly. Being in the Defence front would be a head start. But it would take till the 4th round to go back.
[Default]
Would be able to move 2 spots each round. But these would already be able to move directly to the support of the Offence. If the player doesn't want this. The card would be placed in the frontline of the Defence, so it can hop to the frontline of the Offence after defending.
[Fast]
Would be able to move to the frontline of the Offence right away.

As for ranged effects:

[Melee]
Can only attack an adjacent field. Meaning it has to be in the frontline and can only attack the opponents frontline.
Also, this card shoots last.
[???]
Would be able to shoot the frontline from the support line.
For various reasons, I will not allow other effects. But lets say that if the opponents frontline is dead, this card has no effect anymore if it is still in the support line. It should then be placed in the frontline in order to shoot the opponents support line.
This card will shoot later than the default cards.
[Default]
Would be able to shoot both front and support line, once the opponents front line has died.
[Ranged]
This card shoots first.

Now for combinations:

[Fixed] with [Melee] is only able to battle if it is placed in the frontline of the defence. AND the opponent has a frontline.
Average factor 1.

[Fixed] with [???] depending on the position in the defence. It can shoot the opponents frontline, or both lines.
Average factor 1.5

[Fixed] with [Default] position in the defence is not an issue any more. It can always shoot any opponents line.
Average factor 2.

[Fixed] with [Ranged] this is clearly to have the first strike.
Average factor 2.5

PS. [Fixed] will never meet another [Fixed] unless there is some sort of card that can place other cards. But this is for later concern...

[Slow] with any weapon except for [Melee]
Can outrange any opponent that is [Fixed] and has a lesser effect on weapon range.
Average factor 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3

[Default] has the same story. But the average factor goes from 2 to 3.5

[Fast] has the same story. But the average factor goes from 2.5 to 4.

The thing is, you pay only a bit more. And the opponents card might end up dead before even returning fire.

Lets see the most Extreme version.

[Fast] with [Ranged] which is one (1) card, is average factor of 4.

All the cards (3) with [Fast] and any other weapon range will take damage first. Which are 2.5 to 3.5. Now, the 2.5 to 3.5 might have higher armor and stuff. In order to be on equal grounds. But you simply need more of the [Fast] with [Ranged] in order to beat one opponent. And the rest might simply finish off only 1 of your cards. Which means, a tie with both sides losing a card.
The compisation factors are of course 1.14 to 1.6.
The most extreme card is, if not covered. Still a bit on the losing side. Because its effort is rendered useless.

All the cards (3) with a lower movement speed, yet have [Ranged] as well. Will be on equal footing. Except for they are cheaper. They have once again the average factors of 2.5 to 3.5. And thus the compisation factors are again 1.14 to 1.6. Meaning these cards can "steam roll" your most extreme card.
This time your most extreme card is losing. This is besided of any side taking cover.

Now...
All the cards (9)with a lower movement speed and lower range will be outranged. It doesn't matter if they have compensation or not. They will not be able to harm the most extreme card.
On the other hand, some of them might easily survive as well until a threshold is meat.
For example. The cheapest card is a factor of 1. You would have 4 times higher costs than the most extreme card. If not compensated. A player would need only one most extreme card and 4 rounds to whipe an equal value of the opponent.

Then, if the value's are compensated. You would simply need 4 most extreme cards to do the exact same thing.

Either this TLDR or scrapping some attributes? :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quick note

Having the cards move to defense first is breaking the game.
So I need to keep the original rules. And work from there.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How is this "breaking" the game???

X3M wrote:
Having the cards move to defense first is breaking the game. So I need to keep the original rules. And work from there.

So what is the order of the game?

1. Cards go FIRST in offense ... First Row.

2. Cards that survive then go in defense (SECONDLY)... Second Row.

3. Cards are then removed from play... (is this THIRD???).

Is my understanding correct?! If NOT, please correct me. I need to understand the "flow" of your game... Before I can make a reasonable comment about it... I don't comment on threads that I don't understand (and sometimes TL;DR threads too! lol)...

Note #1: Why don't you make it CONDITIONAL??? Say you ALREADY have a Unit in offense... This therefore "allows" you to put a Unit in DEFENSE behind it...

And IF there is no Unit in play in that LANE... Then that Unit MUST go on Offense... Something like that might work??? TBD.

Note #2: Say you have a Rifleman in Lane #1 in Offense. This means that you could deploy, using both [Rush] + [Fixed], a Bunker in the Defense position (Row #2). Or perhaps a Defense Tower which has better RANGE. IDK ... These are just some ideas that I had. Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
When and where the cards are placed

Cards start in the deck.
In their first round, they should go to the front or support line of the offense.
In their second round, they should go to the front line of the defence.
In their third round, they should go to the support line of the defence.
In their fourth round, they go back to the deck.

That was the initial order. Because the cards would be on the table for a while. And then being put in the most vulnerable position, the front line of the defending force.

So the player that has to defeat a card, will see which cards are out. Then has an easy pickings. After all, it is the goal of the game to keep destroying enemy cards. If a player fails, the player is out of the game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... I'm a bit confused.

X3M wrote:
In their first round, they should go to the front or support line of the offense.
In their second round, they should go to the front line of the defense.
In their third round, they should go to the support line of the defense.
In their fourth round, they go back to the deck.

This doesn't sound EASY to understand. And it may be because I'm an old dude ... Who is easily confused if things seem to be "less than obvious"!

Let me see if I can CLARIFY this... Just a bit!

1. First round: they go into the FRONT line (Offense).
2. Second round: they go into the RANGED line (Offense).
3. Third round: they go into the SUPPORT line (Defense).
4. Fourth round: they go back into the DECK (discarded).

Is this more ACCURATE???

X3M wrote:
So the player that has to defeat a card, will see which cards are out. Then has an easy pickings. After all, it is the goal of the game to keep destroying enemy cards. If a player fails, the player is out of the game.

So if you CANNOT "destroy" ONE (1) opposing card (enemy), that player loses the game. Right?!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:1. First

questccg wrote:

1. First round: they go into the FRONT line (Offense).
2. Second round: they go into the RANGED line (Offense).
3. Third round: they go into the SUPPORT line (Defense).
4. Fourth round: they go back into the DECK (discarded).

Is this more ACCURATE???


1 and 2 is at the same time. But I could do this separated. However, there should be 1 defender ready every round. If not. The player should place one directly from the deck. Which might also be an option.

X3M wrote:
So the player that has to defeat a card, will see which cards are out. Then has an easy pickings. After all, it is the goal of the game to keep destroying enemy cards. If a player fails, the player is out of the game.

questccg wrote:
So if you CANNOT "destroy" ONE (1) opposing card (enemy), that player loses the game. Right?!

Yes, do or die!!

In a sense. You want your opponent to use medium cards. So less to defeat, and still doable to defeat. The strongest cards are few, but perhaps can be defeated fast. And fodder takes long, but always bites the dust.

Either way, every card that you loose, will also not be able to be used in an attack. Your deck gets smaller every time. Eventually, you can't place good cards for the defense any more.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Why is the first round a combination?

The first time a card enters the table. It will most likely enter together with other cards.

The card might be a very weak armored one with a lot of damage. These cards need to be protected asap. And are not used if this protection isn't there.
So first time they enter the battlefield, they get protective companions. And the supportive cards immediately goes to the support line.

Once they go to the defence, they have a moment of weakness unless they are fast enough.
See it as if they are retreating.

Then again, with the order in mind. Perhaps different names for the attacking force and defending force is in order.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut