Skip to Content
 

Turn-based Battle Game

34 replies [Last post]
Fri, 09/01/2017 - 16:58
#31
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just some comments

Blackbird888 wrote:
...Not quite playtesting, but very soon. Dice is one of those things I'll be testing, and I'll probably also test a diceless resolution mechanic as well.

I think you will find that "without" dice, your game will mirror Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Magic: the Gathering. Why do I say this? Well because all those three (3) are MOSTLY "deterministic". And when you move towards determinism, you eliminate randomness but also need to inject enough strategy to be able to "have a game".

So far from your short rulebook and what you have said, I don't picture you WANTING to "re-create" what those games ALREADY do.

And therefore, you will need to differentiate yourself from those games. Because in truth, those games have ALL they need to play. Having a subset or partial "copies" of any of those games -- well it leads towards just a "less good version of Pokemon" or "Yu-Gi-Oh!" or "Magic"...

There is something else to consider. If this is a DUEL game, don't worry about not introducing JRPG elements. Having it FOCUS on combat is very legitimate option. And what you are borrowing from JRPGs is the theme (Story arc-style)... My advice to you is to focus making the duel FUN to play... with enough strategic depth that people will actually want to play.

Keep us notified how you change and further develop your game!

Top
Mon, 09/04/2017 - 01:36
#32
Masacroso
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
I will say something to add

I will say something to add to the splendid comment of questccg: many times fun is related to fast, at least at some degree (this maybe very subjective).

It is very hard to find a balance between deep strategic game and fast game. Indeed these two concepts are almost opposite. However, by my personal experience, I found more fun in fast and social-like games than serious-deep strategical games.

So, designing a game, trying to achieve the most that one wants in several dimensions of the game, is really hard.

Top
Mon, 09/04/2017 - 03:01
#33
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I started play testing as

I started play testing as soon as something could be tested. Imho, this is needed with complex war games.

And I was able to take out errors that would have made my road very difficult. If you think that something is off. You don't know where to start.

It could be anything. The stats, the dice, the mechanics, the number of choices, etc.

Top
Wed, 09/06/2017 - 21:10
#34
Super-Tooned
Super-Tooned's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/10/2017
No

questccg wrote:
I think the "direct" language we use sometimes gives people (other) the impression we are "telling designers what to do".

And of course that is an incorrect conclusion. Our "direct" language serves as a way of expressing ideas -- you as the designer will or will not choose to follow. But at least you had the chance to mull over the design and see if you could better incorporate "some" ideas or be exposed to other ideas -- again to see how they "might" work with your design.

I think our friend "Super-Tooned" doesn't necessarily understand that we are not telling anyone what they should do. We're just presenting ideas that come to mind based on the input given by the designer (aka You). It's your final "right to veto" anything you may have read, heard or seen... because ultimately it is your design.

But coming to a forum and joining it's ranks -- and asking questions, is in my mind a great way to get feedback about your design(s). So please don't be offended if some of our "posturing" seems direct. It's just simpler to express the ideas and have the designer critique them himself.

Cheers and hope your design comes along!

Why'd you bring me into this again? Ya know what? Nevermind. I am done with you. Don't ever talk about me again.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut