Jump to content
Posted 12 October 2010 - 06:39 AM
Posted 12 October 2010 - 08:46 PM
Posted 13 October 2010 - 02:15 AM
Posted 13 October 2010 - 06:26 AM
Original post by Dir3kt
Your TCG concept looks quite promising. It seems you have a solid ressource system. The only drawback could be the risk of having a 'creature centric game'. In fact creatures are the jack of all trades of your game. They can attack, they can cast spells and they provide ressource (they generate their own mana). But still this is only a minor issue and will just need some balancing.
Original post by Dir3kt
Personally I come from MTG and WoW-TCG so I don't have the YGO background. So for me the Trap thing is a bit unclear. Also I'm interested in knowing a bit more about combat.
Onto specific points and ideas know..
- For consistency why not say that creatures have Energy instead of Mana (can go the other way round and say Summoner as Mana)?
- You say 'Spell Cards can be equipped to creatures with corresponding element'. Why not also apply this to the Summoner? So the Summoner can only play spells with corresponding elements, else he has to equip the spell on a creature (which can they play it).
- I also like Structures and they are in most of my game design ideas too ;) One static ability I though of was 'Siege (this creature deals 50% more damage against structures)'.
Posted 13 October 2010 - 06:52 AM
Original post by Acharis
What is the difference between designing boardgame and computer multiplayer game.
In boardgames all palyers are sitting in the same room they watch what others do and wait for their turn. Therefore you want to make the turns as short as possible, you want other players to interfere during active players turn, counter it, react, observe.
In computer games players do not see each other and when their turn ends they might leave and make some quick snack or to toilet, etc. They won't be there when there is their time to react. This causes delays. That's why when making computer games you want to make turns as long as possible, so the "switching" downtime is reduced to minimum. The perfect lenght of turns for boardgames and online games is opposite.
You directly copied the rules from card game, the counter phase was excellent for face to face playing, but for the same reason it is bad for online play. I would rethink that one first.
This would be even more crucial if this was PBEM (imagine the downtime then, one battle could be taking then like 2 weeks if there would be plenty of units and you had to wait after each attack for enemy counter decision).
Posted 13 October 2010 - 08:39 AM
Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:16 AM
Original post by alagtriste
Some random thoughs not about the game design itself but the distribution model. Instead of making another pay per cards CCG you could try to make it free to play.
Players play between them and winners are awarded cards based on a ranking system (players cards bets could also be in place). Then If you develop a game that is entertaining and it gains in popularity you could develop an ebay like (card) trading system (where you take part of the transfer money).
What's more, if the game is fast paced and you could come up with a tournament system (maybe multiplayer rules) them there could be free and pay tournaments (think about sit and go poker tournaments).
So, you make the game and if people enjoy it you could come up with profits.
Posted 14 October 2010 - 01:04 AM
I play legacy(includes ALL expansions) in MTG simply because I dont want to have to spend thousands of dollars every expansion to stay competitive.
Posted 14 October 2010 - 06:17 AM
Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:55 AM