New CCG - With The Elements Community's Help

[ZephyrPhantom]

Was thinking about the combat system for this game, so I just wanted to put a few thoughts down here:

- Do we want this game to about spells/actions or creature combat?
- If spells/actions, does a player necessarily have to win through damage?
- If creatures, there are a few options:

• Back-and-forth attacks with minimal interaction (EtG)
• Selective combat - declare attacks, then declare blockers (MtG, Duel Masters)
• Cannot attack directly unless unblockable or no enemy creatures present. (Yugioh)

This also relates to player 'health'. What is the player protecting:

- Life? (Most card games)
- Select cards? (E.g. Duel Master 'shields')
- A special, nonlife, resource? (E.g. Gold to be stolen, special paint, etc...)

Would the player benefit from taking damage?

[Chapuz]

The idea we thought was:

1) draw card
2) either keep it or convert it into ink (with the main idea, not the last one of white light I posted)
3) play spells, creatures, permanents and other stuff
4) select which of your creatures you want to attack another creature of the opponent that has just attacked or just let them without attacking (the ones you have for their skills).
5) the creatures attack. By default, all creatures attack the opponent. If a creature of A attack attacks a creature of A+B HP, the attacked creature dies and the opponent receives B damage. Attacked creatures don't defend themselves and there is no blocking like MtG.


There are no "blockers" unless there's a "gravity pull" effect casted in a creature. Creatures just attack their targets, the opponent or are held back.

This way, we have interaction between creatures but turns are like EtG turns, don't requiere over 9000 interactions.

And yes, each player has its own HP. The player who ends with 0 HP, loses.

ofc, this were the first thoughts only.

btw, do you hate the "keep or ink" mechanic to get suppliers? Be honest. Also, why do you say it's better the 1/turn?

EDIT: What about sources where you cna choose the color they give you and you can change them each turn?

[OldTrees]

I am going to assume the following model:
1 per turn
Separate permanents (important for later)
Generate ink at end of the turn
Ink is stored

For pillar-based ink, yes. idk why they would be different permanents and no stacks though.

My suggestion was to have
Primary sources with activated abilities to combine with target primary to form a secondary (easiest to convert multiple pairs if color sources do not form stacks)
secondary sources with activated abilities to change modes (easiest to customize if each source can have a unique mode)
Secondary modes were: 2 of primary A, 1 of secondary, or 2 of Primary B

Was thinking about the combat system for this game, so I just wanted to put a few thoughts down here:
- If creatures, there are a few options:

• Back-and-forth attacks with minimal interaction (EtG)
• Selective combat - declare attacks, then declare blockers (MtG, Duel Masters)
• Cannot attack directly unless unblockable or no enemy creatures present. (Yugioh)
• Cannot attack directly if there is an opposing creature. Can attack directly if there no opposing creatures even if there are enemy creatures. (Some online CCGs)

Listed another option although I like the current idea better. (Without the trample though)

[Chapuz]

I actually thought the trample was a pretty good mechanic.

The way to generate "quanta" hasn't been decided yet..
Option 1: "Pillar" cards. Either 1 or more per turn to be discussed.
Option 2: "Land" cards. Either 1 or more per turn to be discussed.
Option 3: Give players 1 pillar/land per turn, at choice
Option 4: Gain 1 pillar by sacrifying the last card you drew (ie. Lava Golem turned into a red pillar)
Option 5: Other (specify)

[OldTrees]

I actually thought the trample was a pretty good mechanic.

The way to generate "quanta" hasn't been decided yet..
Option 1: "Pillar" cards. Either 1 or more per turn to be discussed.
Option 2: "Land" cards. Either 1 or more per turn to be discussed.
Option 3: Give players 1 pillar/land per turn, at choice
Option 4: Gain 1 pillar by sacrifying the last card you drew (ie. Lava Golem turned into a red pillar)
Option 5: Other (specify)

Trample reduces the cost of attacking a creature. I think it reduces it by too much. It is better to leave it for an ability rather than the norm. This is especially true since you already buffed attacking creatures more than Yugioh's system (the prior extreme) does.


The energy discussion has 3 aspects.
1) Where sources come from
2) Rate at which sources accumulate
3) Lifespan of produced energy
Since energy is one of the two resources of the game, this decision will shape the pace of the game.
4 examples:
Any number of Lands per turn
The game starts with some energy. Excess energy is not conserved. 1-3 non land cards are played per turn. Again this quickly results in all cards being played.
Any number of Pillars per turn
The game starts with no energy. On turn 2 there is a large amount of energy. Excess energy is conserved. This quickly results in all cards being played and the game turns into draw, play, activate abilities.
1 Land per turn
The game starts with low energy. Energy is not conserved so we see cards trickle out starting with a weak card and moving up to a strong card or multiple weak cards.
1 Pillar per turn
The game starts with no energy. Energy is conserved. Players decide whether to play cards every turn (going from a weak card to a strong card/multiple weak cards) or they store energy resulting in earlier strong cards but fewer cards played.

Where sources come from has little to do with the pace of the game but it does impact the consistency of the game. These range from inconsistent to consistent. A list of 4 examples would be:

• Inconsistent
• Random card becomes a source (top of deck, first draw, ...)
• Dedicated source cards
• Convert cards into sources
• Gain a source of their choice
• Consistent

Remember rainbow decks are favored in consistent systems and mono decks are favored in inconsistent systems.

[ZephyrPhantom]

So far I like the idea of the 'inkwell' system mentioned in this thread, though I do have issues with the fact that you're throwing away options for resources if you want to advance the game. (It reminds me of the Duel Masters mana system, which I had the same dislike for.) Limiting it to the top card of your deck fixes some aspects of this problem (the fact a player has to think of what option to discard is removed) but also exaggerates other parts of it (the player can't fully control his assignment of 'sources')

What if any card could be used as a source of ink, but putting specific 'source/land/pillar' in your ink zone gave you a greater amount of ink? This would encourage players to run 'sources' but lets them risk using non-source cards only if they want to.

I also think it would be helpful to let any card from your hand be used as a source instead if your hand is above a certain number of cards (e.g. 5-7), as it would give more control over early game setup of a player's ink.

[dracomageat]

I am strongly opposed to the sacrificial decision involved when the full hand is an option but I do undertand your concerns, also.
The idea with this mechanic was to push the players to consider another variable on cards during deck building that's appearance could not be controlled during play. This lead to a lot of deck building strategy and a real feel for what you were playing in UFS's "control check" system which kept me going back to the game long after the cards stopped being sold locally. I wanted to see if something similar could be done with more traditional resources.

Alternatively, how about going back to an earlier mold of the system where one card was drawn and one inked but with a choice of which was which? As in, you acquire two cards, look at them, put one into your hand and lose the other.
Considering the amount of choice this gives, I'd suggesta reduced handsize if this is taken up.

[majofa]

So from the looks of it, we have 3 options for 'sources':

#1
Each turn, you can place a primary color source or tap/discard 2 primary color sources to place a corresponding secondary color source into play.

PROS:
Simply gameplay
Cuts down on 'bad draws', since you'll always be able to gain color of the cards in your hand

CONS:
May not allow enough diversity in gameplay
Denial archtype would be tough to incorporate


#2
Each turn, flip the top card of your deck, you may put that card into play as a source that's marked on the card.
(Amounts and types based on the speed and power of the card)

PROS:
More random games
Interesting concept (slight change on other games, though very similar to Mytheria)

CONS:
Forced combos


#3
Each turn, gain 'X' amount of white light and you use filters to gain certain colors.

PROS:
Another interesting concept (not many CCGs I've seen deal with focusing of sources)

CONS:
Might be too complicated

================================
All-in-all, they're each a good idea. I think, for now, we'll go with option #1 and start thinking up some cards. If it ends up too simple we'll switch to #2.

In the OP, I posted some 'guidelines' for each color.. we don't have to go by it, but it would be nice if those colors 'specialized' in their particular type of card. (e.g. - Red would have creatures, spells, and permanents, but would still carry the 'destruction' theme)

[Chapuz]

Option 4, similar to 2: give 1 chosen "land" per turn. Too simple? Pros: no source cards, decks go 100% in strategy.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Option 4, similar to 2: give 1 chosen "land" per turn. Too simple? Pros: no source cards, decks go 100% in strategy.

I think we should avoid "100% strategy" options, because a small amount of luck is a decent 'fun factor' and allows for unpredictability.

I think #2 is the most flexible option (especially if we could flip 2 cards as dracomageat mentioned earlier), but I'm interested in seeing how #1 plays out as well.

[Chapuz]

With #1, are you thinking the sources land-based or pillar-based?

[Fippe94]

I personally think they should be land-based.