Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Neutral

About p.w

  • Rank
  1. this system would be for cards of the same type. There are several cards types in my game. This is for the field cards, the cards that are played to the grid. THe other card types are support types, such as items,equipment, elemental, etc.  For the field type there would be beasts, grand beasts, characters, war machines etc but they would all fundamentally behave the same way.    Another system would be used for designing support cards. The main cost would be turns it takes to use. 
  2. both players in chess have the same pieces. The only difference is who starts.   And I only brought it up as it proves that balance can result in fun. THough yes, I do appreciate that a pawn and a queen are different in value... not sure why that even needs to be said. The field is balanced, each player is almost exactly equal. The rest is entirely besides the point.    I would play test the cards after initial design, and adjust through initial stages of testing, the point cost associated with each of the main components. And through further play testing, the cost of unique abilities and the likes.    can you cite this study? 
  3. Thats not what I said. And it is conflicting in what way? I said I want the main factors to be the players abilty to adapt and evolve their play style and strategies throughout the course of a match. Rather than the main factor being how much time they spend playing. Though of course experience will improve their skills at the game, but a player who has spent 100 hours playing against easy opponents and spending money shouldn't dwarf a player who spent 20 hours playing very skilled players, and designing an optimal deck for various stratagems and opposing deck types.    Relative  to other players. As in starting off you get a major boost, but becoming increasingly skilled is far more difficult? balance for skill, the 80/20 rule, and all that jargon. It shouldn't be a linear progression.   IT was just a proof of concept, I could think of many games that are fun despite being balanced.   I have the main concepts I think, but I keep trying to simplify things without effecting the complexity too greatly. My main issue is in making field cards fairly. If I can get that down I will be able to prototype the game and such. As for playing with friends, I don't really have any these days. As for what I want, I want the game to be similar to how I imagine it now, only problem is coming up with cards in a reasonable way, otherwise it will just be a mess. Thats why I need some system, otherwise I cant make the field cards and thus the rest becomes pointless, as victory is determined by holding the field. 
  4. I meant from player to player, it is balanced. The only imbalance being who starts. WIthin my game not all cards are of equal value, just they all have the same constraints. everything in reality operates under the same laws but they aren't all the same. I cant honestly tell what you are suggesting, it seems you are suggesting to not have a system at all and just make things up. But that would result in a total mess... and given how inherently unfair it is, no player will have fun for long.      As a starting rule I've set out to avoid this. So while many tcg's are operated under this model, it doesn't have to be so. And it will not be so in my game. I will make an ethical game that is enjoyable. And players will want more cards to offer them more and deeper strategies, and stronger more optimised decks to face their opponents with, not just buying new boosters to get the newest overpowered cards. I want every card I ever design for the game to have a place regardless of how much time passes and how many new cards are introduced.   
  5. Chess is pretty balanced and it is considered fun... there are many examples of balanced games that are fun. I have to disagree with you. Also, I still consider the proposed system fair rather than balanced. Especially considering some cards that have abilities or deferred abilities, those cant possibly be considered balanced.   They would be the extremes within the game but still not unfair. I propose that a rare card, for example, a character card, might have most of its points invested in face value, so all of its faces are  between 9-F for example, and its ability isnt exceptionally valuable, yet it has adopted a vulnerability to fire element, or something along those lines. Whereas a summon card might fairly strong in all of its face save for one, and it has a powerful ability (maybe you could trade in card(s) to be able to fetch out item cards from your support deck.)  they are different but still face the same limitation in points. This way there could be a lot of very varied cards but there wouldn't be inherently unfair cards that need to be binned later.    if players are better just for having cards, then it isnt fun for new players. And also, its akin to pay to win models...  Also, given that , as you say, casual players are the market, then being able to play and have fun with what is available in your collection, rather than having to have huge numbers of cards, is better for the overall player base. surely... I don't want to make a game where the winner is determined by how willing the player is to spend money or play my game. I would rather have a game where the most important factors are how capable the player is, how prepared they are, and how good they are at adapting during play.    also, given that situations where the card wouldn't gain value by adopting a weakness to get the points to make further investments, there would be cards that have not fully used their points.  So that on top of the heuristic and  there is already a deviation from the balanced condition, which I think satisfies the definition of perfect imbalance. 
  6. I dont believe thats true. It should be deep strategy and anyone capable of strategic thinking should have an edge. The rules should be easy to learn and master, and even a new player should be able to play relatively well. Also, as a new player, their deck is unknown to the opponent, so that gives another edge. And while I said they should be able to play them and potentially win, I didn't say their win/lose ration would be impressive. 
  7. Unless I am mistaken, perfect imbalance is when a game component is allowed to deviate slightly from the balanced condition by design. While that is valid, and on some levels I suspect my current proposed method would satisfy that condition (having elements based on heuristic that would introduce imbalance) I don't think this stat point system would make cards stale. And one of the elements will be number of cards in circulation per thousand active players, and I am considering that I may start this stat the moment a new card is released, so newer cards are also rarer. But I do not find the idea of rare cards throwing into chaos the players stratagems.  I want the game to be deep and fair. I want the meta game to be building the optimum deck from your avialable collection to counter the deck the opponent could build from their available collection. As a rule I suspect I will make it so any cards played publicly will be known publicly, and any cards not done so can be shown or hidden.     As a goal, I want new players to be able to get started and play within minutes of starting, and I want old cards to never be outdated, so no power creep, no strictly better etc. I want evolving play. I want every card to have potential for use in some situation that will undoubtedly occur should the player play a fair number of games.    The conditions that stat points could be invested in are as follows, as of my current considerations:   home terrain, elemental affinities, face values(hex so 6 faces), abilities, deferred abilities, day/night affinity, immunities, vulnerabilities, unique bonuses, duplicate limit(number of this card that are allowed in a deck at a time)  and number of copies in circulation per thousand active players.     As for play testing, I don't really have that luxury at the moment, though I will explore and play test when possible, and before launching I will of course beta test, and following that as it is digital I will have a trial run of each new set of cards, and tweak the card freely during that time.   Also, in reference to rare cards, im considering that perhaps instead of deviating from the balanced condition greatly, they will be unusually overpowered in a particular aspect. Where as normally stat points would be distributed fairly evenly, a rare card might have an overpowering ability that gives it value as a pillar of some strategy, or it might have extremely high face values but lack abilities and elemental affinities etc. That way it wont just be about who has the better cards, though obviously that would be an important consideration. The more cards  you have the harder it will be for opponents to build a deck to beat yours, and you have more available strategies.   But it should be possible for a skilled player to win against an inferior player with a considerably weaker deck, and it should be possible for new players to quickly start challenging experienced and skilled players.  
  8. I have been struggling to come up with a formula or method for designing cards for my current project, it is still design phase but I have just thought of one method to use and I am unsure as to whether or not it is a valid workflow. Please inform me if this is an absurd and invalid method, or if there is a better method that you know of.   I propose to use a stat sheet system, where each card starts off with 100 stat points to spend on the various elements that give a card its value. In my game that would be Terrain familiarity, elemental affinity, face strength, and any unique abilities etc.  In addition, cards would be able to adopt weaknesses in exchange for additional stat points, that can be invested in other strengths. I would make a tool to ease the design process, and that would inform me if it is similar or identical to any other card in the system. Given that the core mechanic is playing cards on a grid, with face values that when exceeding the adjacent cards, turns them, I would first assign a cost to face values then from there assign assumed values to other components. Then using some other heuristic method associate some assumed cost with abilities. Abilities that are innate to a card will be rear and costly, however, I am considering the concept of deferred abilities and unique bonuses, which would be cheaper as a result of the additional costs in time and effort to make effective. A deferred ability would be an ability that is made into a card of its own, that can then be applied to the card in question through play. A unique bonus is the concept of a card that is extra beneficial only to this card, but is useful to all or most cards.    I am a beginner to game design and this isn't very scientific, but it seems like it could be of some use. Please advise. And please suggest a method for associating a reasonable cost on abilities, as they are not traits common to all cards and they could have extremely complex and deep uses that would alter their perceived value.   p.s sorry that I did not edit this and clean up my ramblings, trying to get some things done at the moment.    Thanks in advance!
  9. Still somewhat undecided on many aspects of design, but to answer your questions:   there is a play deck, which consists of a field deck and a support deck. Field deck has cards that are played to the grid and the objective is to occupy the most tiles by the end. The support deck consists of items, equipment, order cards and spells (again, wip)  cards are junctioned and require a certain energy cost, is the working idea. Energy cost will take some number of turns to gather, depending on whether certain cards or conditions are met that can effect that energy cost.    some cards may have special abilities, though for the most part such things will be achieved by using the support deck.    one field card per turn, (though Im not sure, the beginning turn may be different, will depend on later play testing I suspect)    field cards have a duplicate limit and  6 values ranging from 0 to F , when a cards adjacent value is lower it turns and is counted to your own score. 
  10. I am trying to come up with a tcg project, which will mainly be digital, at least at first. I am new to this so I am struggling a bit in certain regards... the problem at the moment, however, is coming up with a method to generate new cards. I wish for fair play, I don't want any card to be strictly better, without some additional cost. I want for riskier and more time consuming strategies/tactics to have a higher pay off. And I want there to be enough leeway in the cards stats to encourage conflict and major tide changing plays.   Advice and resources are appreciated!
  11. I don't think you have any problem with any status effects. I seriously doubt it.     No they can't, anymore than JKRowling's Harry Potter can claim ownership of dragons and basilisks. But my point had nothing to do with whether Square Enix owned them, and everything to do with whether your game world is too similar to Square Enix's game world. It's a different question that doesn't have to do with the ownership of the individual pieces, but how similar your games are after you assemble the pieces. If I make a sandcastle and you make a sandcastle, I can't claim ownership of the sand. But I can claim ownership of how I used the sand in the big picture of my complete castle. If your sandcastle looks too similar to mine, then there's a problem.   But just because they are both castles, and just because they are both made out of sand, doesn't make it similar enough to be a problem.   Why then do you think they can claim ownership of 'petrify' and 'silence' status affects? Many games use those also, and Square Enix didn't invent petrification or muting of magic. Why are you worried about something you shouldn't be worried about (status affect names used by hundreds of games), and why aren't you worried about something you maybe should be (the exact specific names of items almost exclusively used by Final Fantasy)?   And again, I'm talking in generalities, I'm not saying you must rename 'Phoenix down' or lawyers will kick down your door. I'm just saying, taking your entire game, and holding it against Square Enix's property, how much in total does your game borrow? If it's a very tiny amount, you're probably safe. If it's a noticeable amount, you maybe might not be. If I made a first person shooter and used Phoenix Downs, there wouldn't be a problem. If I made an RPG and used Phoenix Down, there wouldn't be a problem. If I made an RPG and used thirty or forty different Square Enix items and creatures, and used them in similar ways and settings to Square Enix's usages, then there might be a problem, maybe - it depends on how far you decide to take the similarities.   Nobody knows 100% what you can or can't do. It's not true or false question. It's a matter of "how much" will you borrow? Borrowing some of it is fine. Borrowing too much is risky. Borrowing all of it is suicide. How much is "too much"? A lawyer can tell you when you might be getting close, but he can never tell you perfectly.   Just work on your game, and when it gets closer to completion, the similarities will become apparent. And they will be easy to fix, even late in development. So don't sweat it too much.   Triple Triad was popular. As I mentioned, popular enough that Square Enix re-released it just two weeks ago (Feb 23, 2015) in their Final Fantasy 14 MMO. It's good that little of (the original) Triple Triad remains. You probably don't have any problem then. I probably was assuming much worse, since there is a lack of details given,     Keep exploring it! Definitely worth sticking with it.     Me: "Thousands of of mythological characters are available. If you're worried about legal issues, just avoid those very few specific ones." -> You: "Well maybe I won't use ANY mythology then!"    Me: "If you are worried about item names, change up the item names. There's plenty of good names to use, just avoid those few specific ones." -> You: "Well! I'll probably just quit making the game all together!"        I'm not a lawyer, and while I do programming and design, I'm no amazingly fantastic programmer or designer (I'm fairly decent, but not yet a master at either). But I am a human who has many flaws, and if you want some advice from a flawed human, here it is:   First of all, when someone is giving you intelligent criticism and advice that you asked for, don't get discouraged. Use the constructive criticism to make informed decisions and improve yourself and your work. Informed decisions can include, "this doesn't apply to me" (if you actually are reasonably certain it doesn't apply). Because only you know yourself, and only you know your own thoughts and plans for your game. I'm only seeing the barest glimpses conveyed through a few bare snippets of text.   Second of all, talking about legal issues is normally hope-draining for everyone! So don't let it sink your ship. It's normally hopeless, because legal details NEVER benefit, they are purely defensive to prevent loss. And since they are loss-preventing, ofcourse we have to talk about the loss. The law never creates value. This is expected, and it's good to prepare yourself emotionally for that whenever you go into any kind of legal question.   Third, try not to make mountains out of anthills. I'm saying 'HERE is how you identify a problem'. 'IF there is a problem, it can be fixed VERY easily, using SMALL changes, without ruining anything'. The proper reaction is, "Okay, thanks, I'll keep that in mind if it looks like it is becoming a problem.", not, "Oh the hopelessness! This ruins everything! I might as well just give up now!". (Okay, I'm exaggerating your response somewhat. )   Fourth of all, don't let life get in the way of creativity. If you are genuinely creative, stick with it, be passionate about it. You aren't familiar with copyright law, so ofcourse you're going to be confused and discouraged. Plan ahead for the discouragement. Alot of game development has discouragement in it - tracking bugs in your code, dealing with annoyed customers, dealing with bad reviews, dealing with the business side of things, not making progress as fast as you hoped, and so on. Don't let the frustrating parts prevent you from experiencing the enjoying parts: seeing your code function properly, watching others enjoy your game, reading good reviews, learning about how things work, seeing your creation come to life over time, and more.   Basically, don't let yourself prevent yourself from making the game you want to make.   I really don't think you have much of a problem, I'm just pointing out what areas I think may become a problem, how to identify them, and how to fix them. Nothing worth fretting over.   So, once more, good luck on your game, I look forward to someday playing it.      I was just beginning to reason through it, but I also may have used poor examples. I have in my notes pretty much the exact terminology for the cures to the ailements, so that is why I was concerned. I should rename things once I do some world building and make sure I choose what fits with the lore of my game, rather than concerning myself too much. Though many of the names I have used as place holders, as I don't feel they fit right.    I originally wanted to clone triple triad a few years ago now, and I've had in mind working on a project inspired by it since about 2012. But its cool to know it still lives on, it was a fun mini-game.      As for the mythology thing, I am just not sure if it fits the lore any more. I had some ideas about the kind of story I would want to tell in this world, that card game belongs in, and I suspect using mythology from the real world breaks the story. I may use a few things, but very carefully. At least it creates less worries about ownership and cloning. Hopefully I can find some good guides on world building, I seem to be very bad it!     And yeah, I am beginning to lose hope, though its mostly because the few people I have tried to talk to about my ideas avoided it. I'm also trying to get over depression so that doesn't help. Then there is the issue of funding, I am not capable of doing hundreds of cards with art alone... so I will at some point need to raise the funds to get some artists. But I will compile a design document and a legendarium, then come up with a plan.     Not sure if it would be worthwhile to consider a print version in future. Some components of my game may be too complex to track in a print version, or at least irksome.    Any ways, I have come away with things to think about, and I have come up with some potential ideas for the game. I'll try brainstorm further on them and verify them once I do.   Help has been appreciated.  
  12. And so, amongst the thousands of mythological characters and creatures, why do you need to use the fifteen or so that Final Fantasy uses? I'd only use them as "backup ideas" to use, after you already use 100 other non-Final Fantasy characters. Because by then, it's clear you're establishing your own lore and only happenstancely coincides with theirs in a few minor places.   Sounds like it's more of a problem in the scale of your existing knowledge of mythology, rather than the scale of the game itself, if the absence of fifteen characters bankrupts you of ideas.     So why not Phoenix heart, talons, blood, or feathers?   Yes, but it's not wordplay you came up with.  On it's own, it won't cause you problems, but you need to be careful how many "just one more thing", you're going to steal from the game your game is based on. I'm providing you with genuine, original, creative, original sources of alternative ideas that are perfect fits. You don't want them merely because you're not used to them, and you want Final Fantasy's because you're used to theirs. But their world, their lore, belongs to them. You're used to it only because they made it popular. So you want to use their popularity to further your game. That's understandable... but the more you take from them, the riskier it gets. If there are easy replacements that don't ruin your game, use the easy replacements and make your game more original.   You jump from one extreme to another. Of the fifteen (maybe as high as twenty) Final Fantasy mythological creatures and characters, amongst literally thousands and thousands, you're saying if you can't use those few Final Fantasy ones, you're just not going to use any mythology at all?   All I'm saying is, you can make the game you want. The game you are already imagining. With only minor tweaks, minor changes, that don't ruin the atmosphere or theme or gameplay of your game. You just have to reach a little higher up the tree, instead of taking the apples off the table that someone else has already picked. Yes, it's nice that there are pre-made characters someone else has already wrapped up nice and neat... but they used them for their game.   If you have some things similar, that's fine. Just make sure to have so much more thats dissimilar, that the similar stuff is surrounded by a sea of non-similar. If players saw a screenshot of your game without any details about who made it, and they don't think "Final Fantasy", then you're probably safe.   While intended for trademark infringement, and we're talking about copyrights, it's still good to think about morons in a hurry. If only a moron in a hurry would think SquareEnix made your game (without seeing any title screen), you're *probably* safe. But if even a moron in a hurry would have zero confusion, you're almost certainly safe.   Since I can't see screenshots of your game, and am only hearing your questions about what's similar, I might be assuming the similarities are worse than they actually are. When your game gets closer to release, show it to a few people, without mentioning Final Fantasy or Triple Triad. Ask them what the art and characters remind them of. And if they mention that the game feels like or reminds them of Final Fantasy, then you'll know you might be too close to the cliff (Again, the ideas behind the gameplay itself is fair game to use, and, when marketing the game, you can mention it was inspired by Triple Triad).   Good luck on your project, I enjoyed Triple Triad; your game sounds like it might be fun.      Its not really the summons that I am concerned about, its status effects. Though I did plan to use a few summons that are similar, based on various lists I found online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures_by_type#Fire)    and also, I would want them to be known. But I still don't have a clear story for the world, I think potentially using existing mythology doesn't make sense with some of the ideas I'm pondering over. I may used one or two and go for original or reimagined/named versions of mythological characters and weapons. Regardless, I don't think they can claim ownership of mythology... so I think I could probably be safe using odin or ifrit. Though In the initial release of my game I will probably only have 20 summon creature cards, and only a couple would be the same. I will try and do some world building and evaluate my options.   Pheonix down just sounds so much better... but I will try and come up with an alternative.    Little of triple triad remains in my idea, other than face values and grid based play. And I somehow suspect I may be the only person that thinks its a good concept, its an idea I've been thinking of for a while now and I've only just started exploring ideas for it last week. at this rate I'll probably just lose hope for it and put it aside! 
  13.   A lot of the problem lies in the scale of the game. This is a card game, so there are going to be hundreds (and if it is successful at all, hopefully thousands) of cards! Each card has to make sense with the lore, and each card has to be unique within the game itself. I only have notes for a hundred or so card ideas, and already there is a poison and an epidemic card. I want it to read like a book, so I would avoid abbreviations and numbers etc, so while I would go for potion as it is instantly recognisable and makes sense, I Wouldn't use hi potions.  Generally there will be rather a lot of cards covering rather a lot of variations.  As with the phenoix tears idea, I considered it, but I already had an idea for a "cry of the pheonix" card, and phenoix down works on multiple levels, down is good word play!  I could come up with something else, and in fact, I could just avoid much of real world mythology, and go for something almost entirely new. I'm not sure if doing so would benefit the game or the story, and may just make more work than is needed, for not much gain.    I will review my ideas and come to some conclusion this weekend, I suspect. 
  14.   Thanks for the answer. I will drop the 'gil'  and instead come up with my own currencies, and legal tenders that fit into the lore of my game (potentially) better. That being said, I want my game to have several ideas that are common in jrpgs, and I want it to be based off of real world mythology to an extent. SO things like the phoenix make sense to the lore of my game. And having odin, or shiva as summons too somewhat make sense. I suppose I will instead have to come up with new names for these things. But I want to be able to use status ailments like petrify, confuse, blind, silence, and white magic/potions like potion, hi potion(might rename the more advanced levels as they feel a bit clunky) and that in particular is where my concern lies now. I will avoid as much as possible as I don't intend to make it a tribute any more, that was the idea before  I changed it into its new form. Now I just want to know what I can use without expecting a knock on the door!  I don't want to have to worry so much about being sued that I settle for more original but less enjoyable names. I don't intend to profit off of the work of others, I just want to take inspiration and make a good game! 
  15.     There are ALWAYS potential legal consequences.    The more distinctive the thing is, the more risk you have.   Start with this article from the Forum FAQ. If you haven't read all of them, you might want to go there first.   The exact details start to get tricky. When things are generic there is little risk. The closer you get to someone's specific property, the more risk you have.   If you have generic cold spells, like 'Freeze', 'Blizzard', 'Snowball', 'Ice Shards', you are fairly safe.   if your cold spells are a line-by-line match from the cold spells from a major game, with nothing added or removed, of course you should be prepared for some legal actions against you. Quit being lazy and make up your own.   Why "Phoenix Down"? Quit being lazy and make up something that fits your game world. Other games go with "Amulet of Life Saving", "Life Up Cream", green mushrooms, a red gem, a blue elixir, and more.    Why "Gil"? Other systems use Credits, Simoleons, Space Bucks, Crescents, Notes, Dragons, Bits, Bells, Cash, Rupees, Latinum, Gold, Silver, Copper... Really, are you so uncreative that you cannot think of anything other that Final Fantasy's currency?       You should be. Violating gambling laws can land you in jail.   You should talk with a business lawyer before your idea goes too far.  If you cannot afford a business lawyer, you cannot afford to be in business.       It depends on your goal.    If you want to actually start a business, make money, and be productive, I would start with a business plan.   Once you understand your goals as a business, how much of your personal money and time you are willing to invest, then start building game design documents.   Alternatively, if you decide you are never going to bring a game to market and never release it to the world, then you can also forgo a business plan.     its not about being lazy, originally I wanted to make a clone of a triple triad ( a mini-game) as a tribute and release it for free. But now I would rather make an original product, but still have some elements as tribute. I Don't intend to copy a great deal, and I will be using more original names for many spells. Though I would like to use some names of items, and some status effects (confuse, petrify) its fair to say its laziness, but it wouldn't be difficult to come up with other names, I just would like to know whether I can use what feels right for the project. Its somewhat of a passion project, after all.   Indeed it can, thats why I need advice and references to other projects that may have allowed trading/playing for in game items of some perceived value, and while I could avoid the currency issue by having some in game economy that can be traded for in game currency, I need to know the line.  I haven't played many trading card games before either, so I don;t know whats to be expected. This is my first stop, there will be others on the journey... 
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!