Hidden/Partial/Perfect Information?

Let me discuss some of the PROs and CONs for each option:

A> "Hidden": This is the most "random" choice. Since you do not have ANY information about the opponent's card, luck is a BIG factor. Assuming that you have the choice to "abort" an attack before it occurs could be possible mitigating the "randomness". So you could ask the opponent to reveal his card and THEN decide if you want to use one (1) of three attacks (if any are to your advantage). You could also decide to STOP your attack and end your turn.

B> "Partial": Assuming that Faction are generally "categorized" by a specific "style of play" (ala Magic colors), this would definitely reveal the possibility for "weaknesses" in some cards versus others. Again it is a bit LESS "random" but you're still not 100% certain about the opponent. It could follow the "style of play" but still may be a STRONGER card. You could like before ask to reveal the card and then decide to attack of not. But this generally gives you more idea into your opponent's mix of cards and what to prepare for. It's interesting providing that "Faction" information is USEFUL. And for that to be true, I would need to adopt a "style" for each Faction and knowing what mixes are better outcomes.

C> "Perfect": This is the least attractive option for me (personally). Granted it involves NO LUCK. You can see what cards a player holds and you can decide who you want to attack. The problem I see with this is that TOO MUCH information is made available. Whereas A> and B> offer only a limited view into your opponent's cards. You don't need to declare an attack because you would choose to do battles you ONLY WIN. In a way I find this BORING. Much like Magic, if you don't have Instants or Sorcery or Enchantments to alter the outcome of a battle, everything is purely deterministic ... In my opinion, the least favorable option.

Those are just some INSIGHTs, I'm sure there are probably other PROs or CONs to consider too.

Feel free to Comment/Give Feedback/Ask Questions...

Cheers!

Wow ... I love how you've found a way to "design" for ALL THREE (3) options! That's really COOL!!!

However yes, I am still contemplating the "connectivity" idea too ... not 100% like the sample but something similar is in the works.

And that complicates the testing of "A>" since I can't just put a sleeve over the connectivity...

But otherwise your idea is very brilliant.

I'm not like other people who HATE "randomness" and prefer "determinism" ... but at the same time, implementing A> and B> is not possible (at the same time).

I have nine (9) Factions to contend with... Defining a "style of play" for each one is going to be very difficult. Sure if I had maybe "3" Factions, I could devise something. "5" is starting to get to the upper limit (as seen in Magic) and well "9" is just plain ridiculous.

I'd have to think about it some more... B> sounds more and more difficult to do. Especially if "Partial" information is to be actually USEFUL...

Although what I could simply do is print an additional "paper" for "A" connectivity. It would still require an additional STEP ... just the additional printing/cutting of card backs!

Maybe I can "test" all three (3) options and then remove whichever is the least appealing and move on with two (2) choices and see which ones is the dominant system.

I take it back -- testing all three (3) is possible... Even with universal "connectivity" Just means adding a "back" card which is custom but revealing no card information (same color/logo) only connectivity...

Thanks for that wonderful suggestion. I think it will be possible to test all three (3) and see what works best.

Cheers!

I was thinking about making the cards SQUARE (2.5" x 2.5")... The problem with this is that it doesn't allow for an "ability" to be described on some of the cards.

Sure it makes for the game to go from two (2) player Duel, to a three (3) or four (4) player game (since there are four positions available on the playing surface)...

IDK - Yet. To be honest... Another question concerning the "design"...

Note: It would be possible, but it would reduce some of the "artwork" from the cards. Which means a "slight" compromise. I have some homemade samples that size for another design and it works -- but it's a bit "tight" on space.

I guess the question is do I want to design a "duel" or "multiplayer" game??? Team play could be interesting (2 vs. 2) -- that could set up some interesting dynamics.

Depends largely on the "Card Effects"... If they can be less "verbose" then maybe 2.5" Square Cards could be possible.

The question boils down to this: if your opponent knows what "Races" you have in your hand, that is ONLY "partial information". He doesn't know the "Class" nor does he know exactly what card it is.

So if I go with an option like "B>", well then it seems logical to simply let the cards be "as-is" on the top of your deck and in your hand. It collectively part of the "information" that is not 100% secret, nor 100% revealed. It's somewhere in between.

If I decide to go with option "B>", well I'm not expecting players to all be paranoid about keeping their cards as "secret" as possible. It's a game and the focus is on "FUN". Admittedly this is somewhat "subjective", it means that all is not won or lost by guessing a card or strategy correctly. It's just part of the "augmented" strategy of the game.

Cheers mates!

Was that a thing??? One of the aspects in the game is this "Trading" mechanic. If you "knock" a card, and you have four (4) cards around it... Your opponent doesn't know which card you plan to attack with. But if one of the choices is to "Battle" because of "Bloodlust", IF you win you capture the opponent's "Monster" card.

And that's a thing in my game. Capturing cards is something real ... and it is inspired by TRUE "Trading". Because each player has different goals, you may need to capture 5 cards and I may need to only capture 4.

The idea at the end of a game, is the "tear-down" and during this phase, you can NEGOTIATE the "Trading" of cards. So you may trade cards for the return of some of the opponent's "hostages" (so-to-speak) and the game ENCOURAGES "Trading".

That's one of the important aspects. The game is called: "Monster Keep" and sometimes you get to "KEEP" the Monsters.

I was actually going to color-code the card backs. Again this ENHANCES the memorization aspect... I think all the same card back with different connections would be harder to memorize than say a "Blue" card at such a "position"...

But we'll see how the prototype goes. I'm 50% into my "Orcs" deck.

Cheers!