making RPS less random.

A couple of things I encountered while trying to do a similar thing with RPS:

1)

Do the powers really give a clue as to your opponents likely choice?

They definitely do if I can use some skill in guessing what your powers probably are, AND you don't know what I've managed to figure out. But if YOU know that I know what you're powers are, we're just second-guessing each other - and basically back to a RPS situation.

2)

It could be good to figure out a relationship between R, P and S which isn't simply that one beats t'other, but more that one has certain advantages over the other - and the significance of that advantage might depend on other stuff.

That's pretty muddy, but as an example:

Rock attacks are slow but do extra damage
Rock vs Rock exchanges - both get hurt

Paper attacks are fast but do less damage
Paper always beats a slower attack (but costs energy)
Paper vs paper - fastest scores

Scissors is defensive - it reduces damage from attacks (and gains some energy)
Scissors vs scissors - each gain essential energy, but perhaps not the same amount...

That kind of idea, anyway...

So there's still a natural triangle:

Paper will beat Rock in that it does the damage (but at an energy cost)
Rock beats scissors in that it did damage at no energy cost
Scissors beats paper in that paper used energy and only got a minimal payoff

Available energy and remaining hit points become a factor in determining how far one card can be said to have really bested another. Pyrrhic victories become a thing - which is always a good sign, I reckon.

"Yeah, ok. Your Paper beat my Rock, but...can you really afford the energy cost?" or
"Ok, my Paper didn't do well against your Scissors but...you're on your last legs so it's worth the cost...maybe."

If your opponent's energy and hit points are hidden values but with ways to guesstimate them, all the better.

I'm might only repeating thoughts you've already had... :)

For feedback of a game I'm designing, it was recommended that I check out Raptor. I watched a video review of Sam Healy as he described it. It's a two-player, asymmetric duel game with multiple paths to victory.

Long story short: each player plays a card which has either a number for Action Points, as well as a Special Ability. The player that revealed the lower number uses the card's special ability, and the player with the higher number subtracts their opponent's card number from theirs to determine the number of action points allowed on that turn.

My point in mentioning this is that in Raptor, the varied objectives are handy in helping players determine their next action, and predict what their opponent will likely do. Additionally, cards previously played aren't retrieved immediately and are left face-up, allowing players see what possible options remain for their opponent. There are periods of less information or more information, depending on the game state, which I think is a nice touch.

All of this to say:

• Do you have multiple, clear objectives beyond conquest through direct combat?
• Is there a way to leave cards face-up and out of play until a later point in the round, revealing useful information as a round continues?
• Are there any other opportunities to have public information?
• Do cards have more than one possible use?

If not, then you may want to think more about your game along these lines in an effort to expand the game beyond flat-out guessing.

First, player need some information from their opponent to anticipate their move and not play randomly.

Another option could be relative to the cards available in a player's hand. It might be logical from my hand composition to play rock, and I'll be able to chain with other cards later.

Certain deck of cards, if you have 1 deck per character, could have strategy or behaviors that once your opponent knows the deck, they could try to predict what you will be doing.

Else a situation or a configuration could incite you to play a certain card. Like in Endless Space, if My ships are full of missiles, and I have a card that boost missiles, I am much likely to play that card.

I played a few fighting card games, but can't remember their name.

One thing I hated is the fact that they were entirely focused on outguessing the opponent. I found it annoying because I sucked at that kind of game.

If I were to make a fighting card game, I would focus more on hand management. Trying to play cards to position your hand in a specific card composition and then unleash your combo.

It's like jabbing your opponent here and there just to keep your opponent busy while preparing for the right opportunity to do your real punch.