Sort of a critter combat game based on that found in Garth Nix's Seven Towers series:
So, there would be a deck of creatures with various attributes. Though, not all creatures would have all attributes.
Attack, Defense, Speed and Special
ATK (Red) Base damage done.
DEF (Blue) How much damage is blocked.
SPD (Green) Determines who goes first.
SPC (Yellow) Modifiers (Active and Passive).
If I do include HP, this would be the formula:
HP = 1/2 ATK (rounded down) + 2x DEF
Each attribute has a value from 0 - 5, weak to strong. Depending on the card's orientation, that's the value and attribute that are used.
Sample card:
Crusher
ATK: 5
DEF: 3
SPD: 2
SPC: 1 (Ogre's Strength: Increase ATK 50%)
Link to picture: http://www.bgdf.com/node/5025
Each side of the card will have a colored symbol at the end with a number in the middle. Depending on the colored symbol that is facing away from the critter's controller, that is the attribute that will be used.
A value of 0 means that the critter cannot be used in that spot.
Each turn until the critter is created, a player may choose to draw a critter card and play it or rearrange one of the critter cards already in play. Once all attribute spots have been filled, the critter is complete and combat begins. Only once may a critter card be discarded instead of being played; another will be drawn in its place.
I am considering making it so that the card is merely set aside and becomes sort of a reserve card instead of being put out of play completely. Though, it seems to introduce complications further on. I'm not sure.
Once the critter is formed, I wonder if it should be 1 turn 1 battle and whoever does the most damage wins of if there should be a derived attribute of HP that must be depleted in order to claim victory.
OR, maybe this could be different "modes"?
Also, with the HP factor, I figure that, if there's not a clear winner after X turns (3?) then the critter with the most HP is declared the victor.
Example:
If a critter has greater speed then his opponent and a special such as Lullaby (Put opponent to sleep) the opposing critter would not have a chance to act unless it is immune to SPC, ailments or has a SPC such as Counter or Retaliate.
Now, in order to combat this, I was thinking that SPC should have a value as well. That way, instead of putting X lasts for Y turns. Where X is the skill and Y is some arbitrary number. It could be Y is the level of the SPC.
So a level 3 Lullaby would put the opposing critter to sleep for three turns. I'm not sure that this would be too powerful or not. Though, I suspect it might.
List of SPC:
Passive
Ogre's Strength: Increase ATK 50%
Shield: Increase DEF 50%
Counter: Attack if attacked
Negate: Null opponent's SPC
Bypass: Ignore opponent's DEF
Cleave: Reduce opponent's DEF by 50%
Active
Lullaby: Put opponent to sleep
Slow: Cause opponent to go second on the next turn, despite speed values
Power Hit: Increase ATK 100%
Complete Defense: Increase DEF 100%
Entangle: Opponent cannot attack next turn.
Burst: Once per battle, this critter may double any one attribute.
Those are just some ideas for SPC.
I'm thinking/wondering about having critter types as well.
ie. ATK critter, DEF critter, etc.
This would be based on the top attributes. That way a critter with similar values for two or more of its attributes could be referred to as a BALanced critter.
Should SPC have a numerical value? A SPC could have priority according to value or should I leave that dependant on SPD? If not priority then maybe power? A SPC of a lower value cannot overcome a SPC of a greater value.
Example:
C == critter
C1 has a Negate of value 3 while C2 has a Bypass of value 5. Because C2's SPC has a greater value then its effect would not be (completely) negated.
Should C2 completely ignore C1's Negate or should it be reduced in power accordingly?
Comments
More thoughts...
Why would you LIMIT your AWESOME card system to JUST 4 attributes...?
Like you could think of things like making your critter a "suicide bomber" when his HPs are nearly depleted (another example of morphing adding more strategy).
For example: you could have DFS "OR" REC (Recover hit points/turn).
Again you would need to really think what attributes you can "add" but intelligently. Like ATK or RNG (Ranged attack). This might open the possibility of having a critter that can FLY. If they FLY they can't be attacked normally. (Okay - so there might be possibilities of abuse)
These are just thoughts and it's 2:30 AM (so if some of them are not too clear - you know why! :P)
Well....
As far as limiting to only the four attributes, I wanted to keep it fairly simple so that people who may not enjoy math as much as I do wouldn't be put off.
More on more abilities
Okay so what I came up with is the following:
1-Melee Attack (ATK) or Ranged Attack (RNG)
2-Defense (DFS) or Recover (REC)
3-Depletion (DPL) or Flight (FLT)
4-Special (SPC) or ??? (not necessarily needed)
Also who do you want to target as the intended audience of the game? If it's KIDS, you should stick to only four (4) attributes...
If you want mature teens or adults to play the game, well then I would think about adding the extra attributes.
Personally from my experience, selling to KIDS is HARD. They don't have their own money (or a lot of it). Mature teens and adults have money to spend on their own "entertainment". I would target them... Just because they have the money to spend.
If you target ADULTS, when then your game needs to be complexe enough (strategy, conflict system, etc.) to keep them entertained.
Just some spare thoughts...
Hmm.
I don't really have a target audience. This is mostly just an idea that I would like to become a fully fleshed game. If it happened to get picked up after that in the future then I could see about tweaking it for the publisher but, otherwise, I guess I can say it's just for whoever enjoys it.
Flight should be a "type" of special
1-Melee Attack (ATK) or Ranged Attack (RNG)
2-Defense (DFS) or Recover (REC)
3-Depletion (DPL) or Flight (FLT)
4-Special (SPC) or ??? (not necessarily needed)
You may want to make Flight a "special skill". So you would have:
1-Melee Attack (ATK) or Ranged Attack (RNG)
2-Defense (DFS) or Recover (REC)
3-Depletion (DPL)
4-Special (SPC) or Flight (FLT)
It was incorrect to put Depletion (DPL) with Flight (FLT): either you can attack or you can fly?! Stupid. Sincerest apology. ALSO Flight could be a TYPE of special (SPC).
There could be some "abuse"... Like morphing your critter into a Flying/Recovering unit. It basically means that unless you have Ranged Attack (RNG) , you can heal yourself until you are fully healed... Oh, well. More ironing out.
Hit Points (HP) and more...
IMHO each player's creature should start with the same amount of HPs, the DFS attribute should be used for combat (like armor). How much HPs should get ironed out with "Play testing". Maybe a value of 20 is enough (maybe too high - but with an C1:ATK=5 and C2:DFS=0 it only takes four (4) turns to defeat).
If you have a C1:ATK=5 and a C2:DFS=3, then it takes ten (10) turns to defeat - excluding morphing). See with morphing - as your creature gets weaker, you can change your strategy! One thing to "worry" about is a DFS=5. It makes the creature INVUNRABLE. So you should have a SPC that lowers DFS (like -1 or -2).
ATK=5, no problems there... Just requires you to boost your DFS.
SPD is kinda useless... It simply establishes the ORDER of play. I would think about finding something else... If the order is affected by the choice to ATTACK or MORPH, you don't need SPD.
Maybe SPD should be DEPLETION! After you attack you need to wait a certain amount of turns... (Not certain about this - just a "quick" idea). So SPD=1 is can attack next turn, SPD=2 you need to wait one turn, etc. But there can be turns where all you do is WAIT (which sucks). You might need to add another dimension to the game... Something like INSTANT cards (For the conflict system). Picking a card each turn is doing SOMETHING... It could also affect your strategy.
Okay - you need to think about the other attribute. Maybe depletion is not the way to go.
How many critters (C) can you control?
I noticed at the end of the post you mention having more than one critter... Not sure how you balance creating the other critter (No clue).
Not sure if having more than one (1) critter is smart... My gut feelings on this is that one (1) critter for several rounds is the best way to go...
You will also need to "WORK" on your combat system: it needs to be cool... I personally spent too much time with ressources and I also had no "instant" cards (in the boring DUAL system game I designed). I mean it when I say "WORK" on the combat system... Getting your critter is only HALF the equation.
Just the one.
No, the other critter in the example was referring to the opponent. Also, you're quite right. I definitely need to work on the combat system. Right now, even though I have my ideas down on paper, it is still pretty much an amorphous blob that needs to take shape. Is this something that I should keep in mind while fleshing out the critter creation or something that I don't need to worry about until I actually have a critter made?
Luck of the draw
Well I find the game "interesting". I'm not too certain I agree with the whole "arranging" of the cards. It may be for more flexibility but who decides when they're done "arranging" their cards.
Another way to do it is to use a 90* (degree) rotation for each card picked: 1st card - no rotation, 2nd card - 90*, 3rd card - 180* and 4th card - 270*.
I personnally think the battles should last several "rounds". Why fudge with all the tinkering and only have one (1) round? I mean if you use the 90* rotation, then one (1) round makes sense (simplicity). But if you are going to tinker with the attributes, battles NEED to last more than one round. Otherwise it's like tweak, tweak, tweak - dead! BORING... :P That's just my opinion...
I know you probably like all the "tweaking" because of the specials... But it may not be necessary. If you want only one (1) round, I recommend you use the rotation (or similar)... But if your creature can live several rounds, AND it could MORPH during battle (enable a different special than initially intended... for example). Not sure how you would "restrict" the morphing... But I think it might be cool... Especially if the battles go for several rounds.
OMG (Gosh) why not use the rotation (90*) and then add the MORPH during the battle rounds... So you may NOT get the creature you really want... but you could get the opportunity to have it (after it has MORPHED). Maybe it's like ATTACK or MORPH... This sounds cool to me...
Best.
As far as tweaking goes.
It's not because of the specials. I was hoping that it would introduce a bit of bluffing. See, if you put down one critter with high ATK and DEF and put it in your SPC slot you would still have the option to change it later if you leave those slots empty. So your opponent might hesitate to put something in his own ATK slot because he knows that you have the option of whipping out the big guns with that other critter. Well, my explanations aren't the best. I would need someone to write a rulesbook for me I think, if I ever did get anything published.
Sh!t it doesn't work...
Okay so I've submitted to you a "broken concept"... I don't think it will "work"... You need to "rethink" the whole idea of "MORPHING" and see if you can get it to work...
BUT you absolutely need to figure out how to get the concept to work... It's WAY to COOL! I'd definetly would want to playtest!!! Hahaha...
Best!
Maybe not too "broken"
What you would have to do is "rotate" two (2) cards per turn: the first one is the one you are trying to change (to a specific ability) and the second the card of the same ability as the one turned...
Ya I think this "fixes" the broken aspect of the concept... You could for the sake of simplicity force players to always "SORT" their cards: 1:ATK 2:DFS 3:SPD 4:SPC. This way you could design a COOL playing mat for your game... All kids "love" having playing mats (this is part of the game's design - If you can have a simple, cool looking mat: all the better...!)
No SORTING (sorry - wasn't that far ahead in the concept)
Fnck the sorting. It will lead to confusion trying to figure out which card you want to get to what position (okay - you can still design a mat but it can't have cool logos for each attribute). Without the sorting you can at least "remember" what card you were progressing to what position.
Not sure I grasp your meaning.
I already would have sorting. That way players would know what card is being used where.
I'm using H for Hustle to represent Speed so it doesn't get mixed with SPC.
Opponent's Critter
[A] [D] [H] [S]
Communal Draw Deck
[C]
My Critter
[A] [D] [H] [S]
Turn 1
I draw card and place on [S].
Opp draws card and places on [D].
Turn 2
I draw and place on [D]
Opp draws and places on [A]
Turn 3
I move the card on [S] to [A].
Opp draws a card and places on [S]
Turn 4
I draw and place on [H].
Opp draws and places on [H] completing her critter.
Turn 5
I draw and place on [S].
Now, at this point, I'm thinking that since my opponent completed her critter before mine finished forming, this could give her a bonus come combat. Say she gets first attack no matter what her SPD is or something.
But, yeah, I hope that answered more questions than it created. o.O
Smoother game flow
The system I proposed is more "seamless". There are no two (2) phases, they are merged together... So you are continually doing battle... Ya ya (or Morphing! :P) I had designed a DUAL system, build and the battle... TRUST ME: IT WAS BORING. The game was 15 rounds of building and then with whatever you built you would fight. I found the building to work okay - but the fighting turned out boring to play.
You "could" have an interesting variance in your game (with the whole morphing). It kinda makes your game different (EVEN MORE)...
When a creature dies, you go back to the drawing board and are forced to draw four (4) more cards at random... And maybe have the extra one (1) card which could replace one (1) card (in the four) at the player's choice...
Grunt - URG - ARGH - "Feel the power"...
I can even picture the MORPHING of your creature (with the sound effects and grunting and all! - Okay so I'm nuts. Don't tell anyone! :P) I BET nobody has a game with this kind of "morphing"!
Limit the morphing per turn
Oh yeah... You should probably limit/control the "morphing". You can maybe make a mximum 180* per turn. So you could turn two (2) card 90* (any way - clockwise or counter clockwise) or only one (1) 180*.
You need to harness the POWER of the "Morph"! ;)
Message me if you don't get the concept...
You could still enforce a "rule" of 180* rotation per turn. You would also have to "balance" with a rotation of the other cards (because you end up with two (2) cards with the same attribute). So obviously you turn the OTHER card to the "missing" attribute (... and sort the cards for simplicity and clarity).
So much strategy added
See with the "rotation" rule (2x 90* or 1x 180*) you add another element of strategy: you could potentially morph a monster into a "weaker" monster (or more vunrable to certain attacks). So you have to watch how you turn your attributes... Because the wrong turn could put your monster at a serious risk...
Hmmm.
Something to ponder. I'm not sure how much I like the idea of adding morphing. On the one hand I do want to keep the system trim but I really like the morphing concept; it sounds pretty cool.
May be better on computer
Hey Fenix, neat game concept. I always love monster-combat card games, even though Magic was such a financial black hole.
However, in looking at your concepts, I feel that your game might be better done as a Flash game (online web game) rather than a board game. Your players just have too much to track.
For example, each of your monsters has individual HP. Does one monster get attacked at a time, until it's dead, or can hits happen all over the place before anyone dies? If the latter, you'll need lots of markers to track HP.
Also, some of your specials are a bit unclear in their wording. For example, Cleave reduces a monster's DEF by 50%, rounded down. Does this affect the monster's HP (due to your HP formula)? If it doesn't, it seems like it should. If it does,, players will have to do some math to see what actually happens. When you combine this with other specials, the interactions can be quite complex.
If you do this as a video game, all the tracking and math questions go away; the computer does this for the players. You could then focus on making the monsters cool and the placement tactics interesting.
This would need some
This would need some simplifying if it was to be any kind of a board or card game, wouldn't it?
See? This is why I finally decided to submit. Thanks for the insight, Ludomancer. You've given me some things to look into.
I forgot that others don't want to keep tracks of stats all the time. So... maybe a redesign of the cards or I could simply use the the critter's DEF as HP.