Card RPG

[Arondight]

I don't know where I should put this topic, Fire Emblem section? Pokémon? Creative? So I'm just posting it in general.

All right, time to tell a little story. About 2 years ago, I was a staff member of a Pokémon site (which doesn't exist anymore) and with 2 others, I started a forum RPG. We used cards of Pokémon, items etc. (not the trading card game, but more like this). At first, the game was really popular (30 subscriptions in one hour, on a forum with about 20 active members). The reason everything stopped after a week, was because there weren't enough people to moderate the game. So the game vanished from the digital pages of the site history... Until some months ago.I got the idea of a more improved version. It was meant to be a cross-over of a forum RPG, and a game managed by the server of the site. In that way, there is little to moderate, but the fun of a forum RPG is still there. After some brainstorming, the mechanics behind the game, the design of the cards and the features of the game were promising, and much better than the first version. In PHP, I scripted something so you could make a card automaticly without much difficulty. Here some examples of the cards

Second version:

In this card, a Pokémon had 2 moves or 1 move and one skill.

Third version;

In this card, other cards are needed to fight. For example, you need a move card (like Water Gun or Earthquake), and you can add tech cards (like Attract, Leer...). Because of this, the possibilities with 1 card were extended, and because cards could be generated automaticly, it's not difficult to update the card after every battle.

In the end, the engine became like a cross-over between Pokémon and Fire Emblem, that would be the best way to describe it.

unFortunately, the site closed before this game was suggested, so the plans about it were again off the table. Until two weeks ago. I talked with a friend of mine (also related to the second version of the game... he's NOT known as Vicious Sal) about this, and we concluded that a Fire Emblem version of this game could be successfull.However, this idea is just an... idea? I havn't thought of too much details yet. So, I ask: Is this desirable? What is good/bad? Would you want/like a forum/site game like this? Any other feedback?

Impression of a Fire Emblem version:

Just the previous card, but a bit Fire Emblemized. I didn't spent much time on this, it's just to give an impression.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Arondight

[Tables]

I have to say, I'm interested. I'd need a fair chunk more details first before I could really judge if it'd be something worthwhile playing, but the impression the cards give is pretty cool. How would it play? A bit like a CCG, without the Collectable bit?

[Fire Emblem Addict]

FE card game? I'm totally in!

The Mia card looks really well done btw

[Arondight]

I've thought a bit about it, and here I will explain the global meaning of the game.

Character cards are the most important cards. You have to use weapon cards to fight, and you can add skill cards to improve your character. With these cards, you can duel 1 on 1, but it should also be able to make a battle map. You have a standard Fire Emblem map, with 2 (or more) armies. You can deploy a card on certain squares on the map. The computer will automaticly resolve the battle. (Factors that calculate who is victorious, are the position on the map, the character/weapon/skill cards you used, etc.) The goal of the game is (cliché incomming) to get the best cards, and to upgrade your cards. Because if your character card gets experience and gains a new level, the card is updated. Off course, battling is not the only event, you can trade, buy, sell cards, or fight arena battles...

This is just a global impression, but ideas are always welcome. The most important thing for me to know is if there people are interested in it.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Arondight

[Tables]

To be honest, the concept you'd be playing to upgrade your cards doesn't strike me as a particularly attractive idea, at least to me. Now, if you could upgrade cards during battles it could well be a different story (like a very accelerated growth formula and promotion items and things), since that'd just come into the strategy more. But as it sounds... I'm sure there are people who will like it, but it's not for me.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

I'm still in for it. I think that the card upgrades is a good feature since it adds a metagame to the card game. Now keep posting your ideas and tell me what I need to do to contribute to the development of the game!

[Esau of Isaac]

If I may offer some suggestions:

First, if you're going to make digital cards like that, you're going to need to make them quite a bit bigger. About double the size. The character art's fine, but the background is dull. Second, and most importantly, you need to cut down on the stats quite a bit. You should focus on smaller bits that make the game more entertaining, rather than making a huge complex and bogged down title. Try concentrating on character archetypes, which each character can lightly deviate from. The quick one, the strong one, the defensive one, all with stats to match (attack, defense, speed). You can have stuff like equipment, but make it secondary, so that characters can function without them. If I were to concentrate on a method of battle, it would have damage counters accruing on a character over battle, which is more group-based. In this area you can add affinity, which might add small bonuses in battles.

Though I suppose if you're making an electronic card game then it would operate somewhat differently, but simple is better when making one you play with your hands.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Esau of Isaac

[Kaoz]

To be honest, the concept you'd be playing to upgrade your cards doesn't strike me as a particularly attractive idea, at least to me. Now, if you could upgrade cards during battles it could well be a different story (like a very accelerated growth formula and promotion items and things), since that'd just come into the strategy more. But as it sounds... I'm sure there are people who will like it, but it's not for me.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I think allowing for level ups etc. during a single game would make it more dynamic and would probably make it easier for newer players to get into as they can fight more experienced players without being at a great disadvantage.

If I may offer some suggestions:

First, if you're going to make digital cards like that, you're going to need to make them quite a bit bigger. About double the size. The character art's fine, but the background is dull. Second, and most importantly, you need to cut down on the stats quite a bit. You should focus on smaller bits that make the game more entertaining, rather than making a huge complex and bogged down title. Try concentrating on character archetypes, which each character can lightly deviate from. The quick one, the strong one, the defensive one, all with stats to match (attack, defense, speed). You can have stuff like equipment, but make it secondary, so that characters can function without them. If I were to concentrate on a method of battle, it would have damage counters accruing on a character over battle, which is more group-based. In this area you can add affinity, which might add small bonuses in battles.

Though I suppose if you're making an electronic card game then it would operate somewhat differently, but simple is better when making one you play with your hands.

There should probably be a res stat at least. It doesn't really make it more complicated and allows for a lot more variety. If hit rates were to be added, they should probably be only on the weapon cards.

EDIT: I have a bit more time that I thought, so allow me to elaborate a bit.

First of all, you might want to reconsider whether you want to include maps, as combined with leveling characters over the course of many battles is awfully close to FETO.

If I'm allowed to make some suggestions:

1) Playing Field

As I said, you'll want to keep this simple, I think something like a 3*3 field per player, so 6*3 in total would work well as it's all you need to incorporate ranged weapons.

2) Character Cards

For character cards, as mentioned before you'll want to cut unnecessary informations, so using something like

Name

Cost

Class

Weapon Levels

HP

Power

Speed

Defense

Resistance

should work just fine.

3) Weapon Cards

Name

Cost

Rank

Mt

Wt(?)

Range

Crit(?)

Others (Effective Damage etc.)

4) The Game

I think it'd be best to have each player start out with an amount of Gold, which is used to play characters and weapons from your hand, as well as possible items (e.g. Master Seal). A player would win when his opponent is left without any units and without gold, or maybe when he can reach a Seize square on the opponent's field. Characters could be played on any square that's controlled by you, so your own starting field and everything that you might be able to get from your opponent's field.

The above is just a rough outline and if you would be interested in doing something like that, I can elaborate.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Kaoz

[Tables]

I'm in agreement with Kaoz here. I think Wt and Crit are probably overcomplicating things on weapons - you can have critical be a special skill on some weapons for example if you want. Also I think weapon levels on both may be unnecessary, as may Gold with the right system - for example look at Magic, you have Lands you play as your 'money' for cards, Pokemon cards have energy you need to attach. I'm not entirely sure what else you could do, mind you.

[Kaoz]

I'm in agreement with Kaoz here. I think Wt and Crit are probably overcomplicating things on weapons - you can have critical be a special skill on some weapons for example if you want.

Yeah, I meant crit to be a special extra for certain weapons, same with effective might.

Also I think weapon levels on both may be unnecessary, as may Gold with the right system - for example look at Magic, you have Lands you play as your 'money' for cards, Pokemon cards have energy you need to attach. I'm not entirely sure what else you could do, mind you.

I suggested gold as sort of payment, just like lands in MtG. I think Weapon levels should be included to open up more strategies, but maybe that's just me.

As for what else you could add, you might want to have some sort of Commander, who would be one of the named characters and could be played at the beginning of the game, whereas the other units could be generics. Commanders could furthermore have a special ability that affects all your other units.

[Lord Glenn]

I've been thinking about adding some suggestions and comments to this since the topic was thrown up, but Kaoz's post inspired me to think a little more on the subject.

Here's my input on what I feel might work:

• I suggest a slightly larger "playing field" - Each player has an area of 3x4 cells (rows by columns) that they control, with a separating area of 2x4 cells in between them that are neutral.
  
• Each player has a mini-deck of character cards (forced number of, let's say, 10), from which they select two character cards (without showing their opponent what the cards are). Player cards are unique and only one of them can be on the field at a time. If both players select the same character card, then a coin is tossed to determine who gets to use the card at the start. The losing player must pick another character card.
  
• These character cards are placed on the field in a formation by the means of a map card, which not only sets the formations for both players but also sets the terrain types for each cell on the playing field. (This map card would be part of a small "side-deck" of map cards which is shuffled and is thus randomly played. Also, this would be something that both players would have and would be standard. Could be expanded via expansions, but this promotes issues depending on if this is digital or not.)
  
• The remaining (8) player cards would then be shuffled into the regular deck.
  
• This regular deck would contain the aforementioned weapon cards (to strengthen the units) and gold denomination cards (to pay the cost of "buying" weapon cards or "hiring" new units (either generic cards (with weaker stats than character cards, but there can be duplicates of the generics on the field - also, generics can get a bonus/boost if a character card affiliated with them is on your side of the field) or other character cards)), as well as the newly aforementioned generic unit cards (which operate like character cards). Also, there would be other kinds of cards like scenario cards (Trainer cards in Pokemon, for instance, or Spell cards in Yu-Gi-Oh!) which would cause events to take place. Also, you would have EXP cards, which would give certain amounts of EXP to the unit cards (generics or characters). To prevent a ridiculous deck size, these would have to minimally be valued at 100 EXP, possibly with rarer variants providing more (and with a cap on the number allowed in the deck).
  
• Characters gain EXP and when they reach a level where you have another character card of them, you can replace the current card with an upgraded one. (Say you set a minimum character level of 10 for the start of the match and you start with a Lv. 10 Soren (Mage). If you feed him 5 100pt. EXP cards and you have a Lv. 15 Soren (Mage) card, then you can "evolve"/upgrade the card on the field.) These upgraded character cards would not be part of the main deck.
  
• The goal of each match would be to eliminate all of the opponent's unit cards on the field (requiring a player to continually field units), capture the opponent's Seize square (as defined by the Map card), or cause the opponent to run out of cards in his deck.
  

And, obviously, some of the other stuff mentioned by the other posters could be incorporated in as well.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[Kaoz]

This isn't my topic, but I hope nobody minds when I'm adressing some points...

I've been thinking about adding some suggestions and comments to this since the topic was thrown up, but Kaoz's post inspired me to think a little more on the subject.

Here's my input on what I feel might work:

• I suggest a slightly larger "playing field" - Each player has an area of 3x4 cells (rows by columns) that they control, with a separating area of 2x4 cells in between them that are neutral.

I wasn't sure on the number of columns, any special reason for having 4? Having a neutral area is also a good idea I think, though it should be considered that, seeing as it looks like we're cutting Movement as a stat (and probably have foot units move 1 and mounted units 2 tiles per turn or something), the time needed to enter the opponent's area increased by quite a bit. So maybe having only one neutral row could be considered.

• Each player has a mini-deck of character cards (forced number of, let's say, 10), from which they select two character cards (without showing their opponent what the cards are). Player cards are unique and only one of them can be on the field at a time. If both players select the same character card, then a coin is tossed to determine who gets to use the card at the start. The losing player must pick another character card.
• These character cards are placed on the field in a formation by the means of a map card, which not only sets the formations for both players but also sets the terrain types for each cell on the playing field. (This map card would be part of a small "side-deck" of map cards which is shuffled and is thus randomly played. Also, this would be something that both players would have and would be standard. Could be expanded via expansions, but this promotes issues depending on if this is digital or not.)
• The remaining (8) player cards would then be shuffled into the regular deck.
• This regular deck would contain the aforementioned weapon cards (to strengthen the units) and gold denomination cards (to pay the cost of "buying" weapon cards or "hiring" new units (either generic cards (with weaker stats than character cards, but there can be duplicates of the generics on the field - also, generics can get a bonus/boost if a character card affiliated with them is on your side of the field) or other character cards)), as well as the newly aforementioned generic unit cards (which operate like character cards). Also, there would be other kinds of cards like scenario cards (Trainer cards in Pokemon, for instance, or Spell cards in Yu-Gi-Oh!) which would cause events to take place. Also, you would have EXP cards, which would give certain amounts of EXP to the unit cards (generics or characters). To prevent a ridiculous deck size, these would have to minimally be valued at 100 EXP, possibly with rarer variants providing more (and with a cap on the number allowed in the deck)
• Characters gain EXP and when they reach a level where you have another character card of them, you can replace the current card with an upgraded one. (Say you set a minimum character level of 10 for the start of the match and you start with a Lv. 10 Soren (Mage). If you feed him 5 100pt. EXP cards and you have a Lv. 15 Soren (Mage) card, then you can "evolve"/upgrade the card on the field.) These upgraded character cards would not be part of the main deck.

I agree with being able to use a character card from the start, but having 10 of them seems to be a bit much.

Do you think a map card is necessary? Would it even add a lot to the game itself?

I disagree with having EXP cards however. You'd need a lot of them to make a difference and as you said, the deck would probably have to be pretty large. I would suggest to disregard EXP gain and instead focus on Promotion Items. There would be a Promotion Item for every group of characters (Knight's Crest, Ocean Seal etc., Master Seal would cost more gold to play), and when promoting one of your units, you could search your deck for the promotion card. Alternatively you could play promoted units from your hand as prepromotes, but their stats would be slightly decreased. As for costs, it should probably go something like this:

Base Unit < Promoted Unit < Base Unit+Promotion Item < Base Unit+Master Seal

Also, having character cards in their highest class to make them stand out more would be a good idea imo.

As for gold, maybe instead of having seperate cards that only give you gold, you could get them from scenario cards or from selling weapons (putting them from your hand to the graveyard and you'd gain half of what they cost or something).

• The goal of each match would be to eliminate all of the opponent's unit cards on the field (requiring a player to continually field units), capture the opponent's Seize square (as defined by the Map card), or cause the opponent to run out of cards in his deck.

And, obviously, some of the other stuff mentioned by the other posters could be incorporated in as well.

Agreeing with the win conditions.

[Marthur]

Interesting project. So I'm going to give some input which might or might not be useful.

-Drop the bar next to the stats. It just makes things more difficult to read and doesn't help in any way except for caps, but I'm not sure if those are really necessary.

-I would also get rid of the numerical values and swap it with some icons ranging from one to five (twelve for the HP) for each stat. While the values are more Fire Emblem-ish, it just makes things more difficult to calculate. Looking back-and-forth at different units will just become tedious if the calculations are too difficult. This could be slightly fixed if the game can calculate everything for you, but even then, I think it's kind of boring to look at stats and numbers.

-The EXP system is something that will also make the game tedious IMO. I'd just limit the number of Master Seals to, say 3, in a deck and that would be it. EXP cards with different values like Lord Glenn mentionned would just make things unbalanced for new players even if limited in number. But if you want to keep it though, I'd agree with having only 100 EXP cards that would allow a player to increase one stat of his choice (if the numerical values are kept, increase HP by one and let the player increase two stats of his choice.) An unit would also be able to gain a level after killing an enemy unit. That way, you don't have to deal with EXP calculations.

-Have terrain cards that you can place on an empty space. The usual forest/mountain for def/res boost. But I'm also thinking of a wall/lake, that could give a strategical advantage to archers and mages; a fort that would increase armored units' defense, or a throne room, that would heal a unit every turn but cause a player's defeat if seized. (though that would be redundant if there is a seize square like LG mentionned)

-Also I'm just going to say this now: be extra careful of first-move advantage. It all depends on how the game will play though, especially how many units you will be able to move during a turn. This can break a game if you don't take it into consideration, so the first player should have some sort of restrictions imposed on him.

Edit:

I think it would be more interesting to have several units on the map. Perhaps start with two for each player, with the possibility to add another one every turn, but limited to three units/player on the map (so there would be 6 units at max on the map). A character deck could be limited to five cards.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Marthur

[Lord Glenn]

@Kaoz - I guess I can briefly comment in return.

For the four columns aspect, I felt that limiting the area to a relatively narrow rectangle felt cramped, so I widened it by an extra column. As for the neutral area, if the plan is to have generic units as well as character cards in that area and that one loses if they have no more unit cards on the field, you kinda have to keep enough units on the field to survive. By increasing the playable area, you prevent cases where someone draws only one generic enemy and gets smashed in two turns before they can have a chance to draw another. It removes a small portion of the luck aspect of any card game.

Ten character cards was an off-the-cuff suggestion, just to give the players an ample number of choices at the beginning. And, if their starting characters were defeated, then they have others to fall back on in the deck. Though, I suppose that one could get by with 6-8 instead of 10.

The map card would make unit placements uniform between the two players as well as apply terrain types to the squares for calculations (Forest, Sand, etc.). These also might change the number of squares units could move across the field. (For instance, mounted units (minus flying units) have only 1 move on Forest and Sand, etc.)

I think that this would need a mixture of the two mechanics (EXP + Promotion Items), because you could easily progress from a base unit card to a promoted unit card early on if you get an extremely ideal opening draw. This way, you'd be required to train your unit somehow before just tossing down a promotion item card and paying the required amount of funds/gold to use it. Not sure how I'd implement this, but it's at least an idea. I agree on the searching and prepromote stuff, though. Well, with the stipulation that if I've got Soren (Mage) on the field and he dies, I can't play Soren (Sage) later in the match if I happen to draw it, since he died earlier. I'd say that this should apply to both teams, but that's not very fair to restrict what cards the other player could use because I played them first.

I like the extension of the gold stuff. I was kinda going along with the MtG Lands/Pokemon Energy concept with mine. I suppose, to prevent issues with having a return of money or having to pay with exact amounts, one could also have a counter that increases and decreases based on the cards you play. (Open a treasure chest with 10000G in it? Added to counter. Play Master Seal, -10000G from counter. Instead of having to discard the a 10000G card to play the Master Seal.)

Edited May 10, 2011 by Lord Glenn

[Kaoz]

@Kaoz - I guess I can briefly comment in return.

For the four columns aspect, I felt that limiting the area to a relatively narrow rectangle felt cramped, so I widened it by an extra column. As for the neutral area, if the plan is to have generic units as well as character cards in that area and that one loses if they have no more unit cards on the field, you kinda have to keep enough units on the field to survive. By increasing the playable area, you prevent cases where someone draws only one generic enemy and gets smashed in two turns before they can have a chance to draw another. It removes a small portion of the luck aspect of any card game.

Ten character cards was an off-the-cuff suggestion, just to give the players an ample number of choices at the beginning. And, if their starting characters were defeated, then they have others to fall back on in the deck. Though, I suppose that one could get by with 6-8 instead of 10.

The map card would make unit placements uniform between the two players as well as apply terrain types to the squares for calculations (Forest, Sand, etc.). These also might change the number of squares units could move across the field. (For instance, mounted units (minus flying units) have only 1 move on Forest and Sand, etc.)

I don't have any real issues with any of this.

I think that this would need a mixture of the two mechanics (EXP + Promotion Items), because you could easily progress from a base unit card to a promoted unit card early on if you get an extremely ideal opening draw. This way, you'd be required to train your unit somehow before just tossing down a promotion item card and paying the required amount of funds/gold to use it. Not sure how I'd implement this, but it's at least an idea. I agree on the searching and prepromote stuff, though. Well, with the stipulation that if I've got Soren (Mage) on the field and he dies, I can't play Soren (Sage) later in the match if I happen to draw it, since he died earlier. I'd say that this should apply to both teams, but that's not very fair to restrict what cards the other player could use because I played them first.

I see what you mean with the quick start, but considering other card games with similiar mechanics like Pokemon, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. However, I'd imagine EXP to make things quite a bit more complicated, while adding only a minimal amount of depth. Sure, it'd be more FE like to include it, but I think the gains would be minimal.

I like the extension of the gold stuff. I was kinda going along with the MtG Lands/Pokemon Energy concept with mine. I suppose, to prevent issues with having a return of money or having to pay with exact amounts, one could also have a counter that increases and decreases based on the cards you play. (Open a treasure chest with 10000G in it? Added to counter. Play Master Seal, -10000G from counter. Instead of having to discard the a 10000G card to play the Master Seal.)

Yeah, I imagined that you would use a counter to keep track of gold.

[Arondight]

Everybody, thanks for your input! I've gained many ideas. It's very difficult to sum things up, and I have the feeling that not everybody has the same view on certain things (in the meaning of not fully understanding each other ideas). I've tried to sumarize things (don't know if it did work out well)

Cards

- Level

- Class

- HP (duh)

- Might (Offensive power, sometimes skill activation rate)

- Defence (Defensive power, sometimes skill activation rate)

- Speed (Evasion rate / double attack (not as extreme as in FE), sometimes skill activation rate)

- Skill (activation rate of skills, which skills you can use)

- Weapon/level(?)

- Affilation (eventually for minor things in the game)

- 'Unit cards' (just soldiers), 'Hero cards'/'General cards' (certain characters)

- Class change by special item cards (like Master Seal, Fellow Contract, Master Crown...)

Scenario cards(?)

- Like Pokémon trainer cards, Yu-Gi-Oh spell/trap cards, Fire Emblem online cards

Weapon cards

- Name

- Rank

- Power

- Description/special

Game

- Everybody starts with an amount of gold, no cards.

- Exp cards? Terrain cards? Fortification cards?

Game - Playing field (2 people)

- At least 2 armies.

- Map like in FE, and deployement areas. Depending on where you deploy your characters, you get a bonus/malus, your target (who you're fighting) can change, ord the order of the battles can change.

- More 'rounds'/'turns' so you can anticipate? This needs the players to be active, is this possible?

- Story based campaign?

Game - Arena battles (2 people or more)

Notes

- Crit rate can be added by skills, not by weapons

- No Wt/Cn

Please give feedback. Since my English is not the best, it's possible I overlooked/misunderstood something in the posts before. Please say so, if you have this feeling.

[Kaoz]

Here I go then...

Cards

- Level

- Class

- HP (duh)

- Might (Offensive power, sometimes skill activation rate)

- Defence (Defensive power, sometimes skill activation rate)

- Speed (Evasion rate / double attack (not as extreme as in FE), sometimes skill activation rate)

- Skill (activation rate of skills, which skills you can use)

- Weapon/level(?)

- Affilation (eventually for minor things in the game)

- 'Unit cards' (just soldiers), 'Hero cards'/'General cards' (certain characters)

- Class change by special item cards (like Master Seal, Fellow Contract, Master Crown...)

1) I still think having a Resistance stat in addition to Defense would be a good idea. Without one, there is basically no need to bother with Magic units.

2) Not sure whether it's a good idea to have Speed influence avoid. While this is meant to be an online game, I think designing it with the thought of an actual TCG in mind would greatly improve the final product as that way one can concentrate on the important aspects of gameplay, resulting in a better overall product.

3) Is a Skill stat needed? Activation rates could easily be influenced by HP, Power, Defense/Resistance and Speed, while the Skill Cards could take care of who can use which Skills.

4) I definately recommend adding Weapon Levels, as I think quite a bit of depth would be added that way while keeping things simple.

5) You should add Cost (in gold).

6) You should also add a field where characteristics like whether the unit is mounted or armored can be displayed.

Scenario cards(?)

- Like Pokémon trainer cards, Yu-Gi-Oh spell/trap cards, Fire Emblem online cards

Scenario cards should definately be included. Again, they add a lot to the game without making things more complicated.

Weapon cards

- Name

- Rank

- Power

- Description/special

You should add Hit and Range, as well as Cost.

Game

- Everybody starts with an amount of gold, no cards.

- Exp cards? Terrain cards? Fortification cards?

1) I think every player should have a starting hand of 5 cards or something.

2) I'm against adding EXP cards or EXP in general for that matter. In my opinion, for this kind of game EXP is just completly unnecessary and makes things more complicated for no real reason.

3) Yes on Terrain cards, not sure about Fortification, but leaning towards no. If anything it would be easier to include forged Weapon cards.

Game

Game - Playing field (2 people)

- At least 2 armies.

- Map like in FE, and deployement areas. Depending on where you deploy your characters, you get a bonus/malus, your target (who you're fighting) can change, ord the order of the battles can change.

- More 'rounds'/'turns' so you can anticipate? This needs the players to be active, is this possible?

- Story based campaign?

Game - Arena battles (2 people or more)

As for the playing field, I think Lord Glenn's suggestion would work really well here. I have a different opinion regarding the non generic characters, but it's not something one has to worry about this early in design.

@bold

Could you elaborate a bit here?

Notes

- Crit rate can be added by skills, not by weapons

- No Wt/Cn

Why wouldn't you allow Weapons to add crit? Not something like a 5% Crit, but rather something like Killer Weapons with 30%. You wouldn't even need to add Crit as a stat on the Weapon Card, just note it as a special.

[Kaoz]

I hope it's ok if I double post in this case?

Anyway, I went through the thread and summarized everything:

1) Field

depends on whether Movement is a stat

-> yes: 3x4 cells per player and 2x4 cells of neutral space, would probably include maps

-> no: 3xN cells per player to simulate close combat, ranged combat and long ranged combat, probably relies on terrain cards to simulate a field

other ideas?

2) Cards

2.1) Characters

Name (including location for Generics)

Class (+ Promotion Path y/n?)

Cost

HP

Might (Power for physical units, Magic for magical ones)

Defense

Resistance

Speed y/n? (if yes, only for double attacks or avoid as well?)

Weapon Levels

Other (Mounted, Flying etc.)

Movement y/n?

Affinity y/n? (could be used as background colour without taking an extra field)

2.2) Items

2.2.1) Weapons

Name

Type

Cost

Level

Might

Hit y/n?

Uses y/n?

Range

Other (Effective Damage, Crit etc.)

2.2.2) Others

Name

Cost

Uses y/n?

Rquirements

Effect

2.3) Terrain

2.3.1) Events/Scenarios

Name

Cost / Requirements

Effect

2.3.2) Terrain

Cost

Effect

3) Others

players start with X Gold

more Gold can be aquired by selling Items

Commander characters that are played at the beginning of the game y/n?

win condition? (defeat opponent's Commander?, "seize" a field/row?)

EXP Cards y/n?

stats displayed as usual or simplified to range from 1-X?

special Character deck, seperated from the main deck? (may serve as possible win condition)

how many units can act per turn?

fortification system for Weapons?

Everything marked as a question is something worth discussing imo, things that are not marked are choices that I am relatively sure should be done that way (obviously I can elaborate on any of them if needed).

For starters, I feel we should discuss to what extent we want to include Movement (not only as a stat, but in general) as it heavily influences the Field's design which in return influences everything else. I am currently undecided on the matter, so I would like to ask someone else to give their opinions first.

[Marthur]

Just my opinion:

No speed stat.

As for movement, maybe take the original TCG as a reference? (Infantry can move in the 4 directions. Cavalry can move forward diagonally as well, and flying units can move in all directions.)

Affinity could work the same as Pokémon's energy cards.

No hit nor uses for weapons.

No commander cards.

As for victory conditions, I believe it should be defeating all the opponent's units on the field. I'm also thinking the game could work like the DS games' multiplayer: Have a turn limit and a center square that players would have to seize and keep until the end.

No exp cards.

Stats simplified from 1 to 5 (maybe 10 max) except for HP.

I don't see any appeal in having a gold system btw. Weapons cards should be playable as soon as you draw them from your deck. Of course it would be bad if one player stuffed his deck with silver weapons, so I don't know, perhaps make level 1 (Steel/magic swords/range weapons) & level 2 (Silver/Killer) weapons and either:

-only have a unit with a level 1 weapon being able to equip a level 2 weapon by discarding the former.

-only have promoted units being able to wield level 2 weapons.

[Kaoz]

No speed stat.

As for movement, maybe take the original TCG as a reference? (Infantry can move in the 4 directions. Cavalry can move forward diagonally as well, and flying units can move in all directions.)

Affinity could work the same as Pokémon's energy cards.

How large are the maps in the original TCG? Also, can all units only move one space per turn?

Could you elaborate on the affinity part as well please? I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't see any appeal in having a gold system btw. Weapons cards should be playable as soon as you draw them from your deck. Of course it would be bad if one player stuffed his deck with silver weapons, so I don't know, perhaps make level 1 (Steel/magic swords/range weapons) & level 2 (Silver/Killer) weapons and either:

-only have a unit with a level 1 weapon being able to equip a level 2 weapon by discarding the former.

-only have promoted units being able to wield level 2 weapons.

Weapons aren't the only cards which would need gold though. I think that especially characters need some sort of payment, as otherwise you'd have an extremly hard time to make them all close to equal. For example, why would you ever choose a Myrmidon over a Mercenary when it doesn't have any benefits like lower cost (the only stat they would be worse in is Speed and it's not sure whether Speed is even included)?

[Marthur]

How large are the maps in the original TCG? Also, can all units only move one space per turn?

Could you elaborate on the affinity part as well please? I'm not sure what you mean.

3x4. I'm pretty sure they can only move one space per turn, but what I'm not sure is if you can move all your units during one turn.

I've never really played the Pokemon TCG, but pokemon cards have moves which require a certain number of energy cards to be used.

For exemple, Squirtle can use Bite only if you attach a water and basic (basic is neutral, so you can use any kind of energy card) energy cards to him.

So I was thinking a unit could have an affinity, and attaching an affinity card of the same type would allow him to move and attack. Criticals could be triggered by attaching more affinity cards (let's say three for instance).

Weapons aren't the only cards which would need gold though. I think that especially characters need some sort of payment, as otherwise you'd have an extremly hard time to make them all close to equal. For example, why would you ever choose a Myrmidon over a Mercenary when it doesn't have any benefits like lower cost (the only stat they would be worse in is Speed and it's not sure whether Speed is even included)?

Myrmidons (or perhaps just their promotion) could have easier requirements for critical hits (two affinity cards rather than three).

Well that's just assuming both criticals and affinity cards make it into the game anyway, but I think we can balance the units without the use of money if we think hard enough.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Marthur

[Kaoz]

3x4. I'm pretty sure they can only move one space per turn, but what I'm not sure is if you can move all your units during one turn.

I've never really played the Pokemon TCG, but pokemon cards have moves which require a certain number of energy cards to be used.

For exemple, Squirtle can use Bite only if you attach a water and basic (basic is neutral, so you can use any kind of energy card) energy cards to him.

So I was thinking a unit could have an affinity, and attaching an affinity card of the same type would allow him to move and attack. Criticals could be triggered by attaching more affinity cards (let's say three for instance).

Thanks for the info.

Hmm I see... I hadn't thought of using affinity that way... I imagined they would be closer to the games and either have the Commander (assuming we have one) give a bonus to units with the same affinity as him or have some support event card. Interesting idea though...

Myrmidons (or perhaps just their promotion) could have easier requirements for critical hits (two affinity cards rather than three).

Well that's just assuming both criticals and affinity cards make it into the game anyway, but I think we can balance the units without the use of money if we think hard enough.

And that's what I kinda doubt. We have 6(?) continents, each with quite a few generics and then all the named characters on top of that. There is only so much we can balance with stat distribution and the like.

[Marthur]

Hmm I see... I hadn't thought of using affinity that way... I imagined they would be closer to the games and either have the Commander (assuming we have one) give a bonus to units with the same affinity as him or have some support event card. Interesting idea though...

What I like about this affinity system (and the pokemon TCG for that matter) is that a good deck won't necessarily revolve around having strong units, but rather having units with the same affinity. In a way, you could say it's a form of support.

And that's what I kinda doubt. We have 6(?) continents, each with quite a few generics and then all the named characters on top of that. There is only so much we can balance with stat distribution and the like.

Balance between different classes likely won't be a problem since we can apply the same rules used in the video games.

As for balancing different characters of the same class, well first, characters won't necessarily have to be balanced, some will be stronger than others (based on plot) and it will be just fine (Camus should be better than Jeigan for instance.)

Some characters will also have the same stats. (I guess that can't be avoided.)

Also, promotion will play some role in the balancing, since different promoted units will have different stats boosts.

Then it will just be a matter of distributing HP/Power/Defense/Resistance stats indeed.

Also, I'm not entirely against including a speed stat, but I think you should be careful as it can easily become a game breaker. Most likely, fast units will have an overwhelming advantage if they can consistantly double. You're basically giving them twice as much power.

So, the following is just assumptions: Assuming we're using affinity cards as previously described, maybe the cost for faster units to double should be two of them. As a result, you would need 4 of them for one attack + one critical and six for two criticals. To summarize:

-1 Affinity Card (AC): 1 attack.

-2 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 2 attacks

-3 AC: A critical hit

-4 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 1 attack + 1 critical hit.

-6 AC and unit is significantly faster than enemy: 2 critical hits.

I'm pretty sure fast units are still advantaged though.

Will that make Swordmasters overpowered since their cost for criticals is lowered? We can possibly balance it if we don't give them too much power.

Will that make Armored units useless? Possibly. We'll have to see how counter attacks work as well. (I'm thinking that a counter attack will need an AC to be launched, and Armored units could be exempt, but that could also make them too overpowered. [i can't be sure without any testing])

Edited June 27, 2011 by Marthur

[Kaoz]

I'm pretty sure fast units are still advantaged though.

Will that make Swordmasters overpowered since their cost for criticals is lowered? We can possibly balance it if we don't give them too much power.

Will that make Armored units useless? Possibly. We'll have to see how counter attacks work as well. (I'm thinking that a counter attack will need an AC to be launched, and Armored units could be exempt, but that could also make them too overpowered. [i can't be sure without any testing])

I can simulate arena battles if you'd like. Just give me the stats for the units and weapons, as well as whether speed should be included or not.

I will reply to the rest tomorow I think.

[Marthur]

I can simulate arena battles if you'd like. Just give me the stats for the units and weapons, as well as whether speed should be included or not.

I will reply to the rest tomorow I think.

I think all unit cards should have Iron Swords as default weapons. That way, calculations will just be based on a unit's stats. Equip cards should just boost/reduce some stats. (For instance a Steel Blade could give a better Power boost than a Steel Sword but reduce the speed of a unit as well. Or something like that)

Anyway, stats for different classes?

I have really no idea how to balance things properly, but let's try it anyway.

Myrmidon

HP: 9

Power: 4

Speed: 6

Def: 3

Res: 2

Mercenary

HP: 11

Power: 5

Speed: 4

Def: 4

Res: 2

Fighter

HP: 12

Power: 6

Speed: 3

Def: 2

Res: 2

Knight

HP: 13

Power: 6

Speed: 2

Def: 5

Res: 1

Mage

HP: 8

Power: 5

Speed: 4

Def: 2

Res: 4

Cavalier

HP: 11

Power: 5

Speed: 5

Def: 4

Res: 3

Archer

HP: 10

Power: 5

Speed: 4

Def: 3

Res: 2

Pegasus knight

HP: 9

Power: 4

Speed: 6

Def: 2

Res: 4

Dragon knight

HP: 12

Power: 5

Speed: 4

Def 5

Res: 2

I'm just typing random numbers really.

Critical hits should double the Power stat when used I think.

Double attacks should only be done if the unit has at least 2 more speed than the opponent. Maybe 3 more.

Weapon/Magic triangles should add +1 damage when effective.

Bows should deal + 2 damages to Pegasus Knights

Magic attacks should deal + 2 damages to dragon Knights.

I think we should also think about how many cards a player can draw from his deck per turn.

It could either be

-player draw X cards at the start of each turn

-player draw X cards until he has Y in his hands at the start of each turn (This one can be easily abused so I'd rather go for the former, but we'll still have to decide on an acceptable number of cards.)

Edited June 29, 2011 by Marthur