Two conflicting ideas about how to defeat your opponent in a "hopefully" original card game have arisen. I present these two ideas hoping that we can come to a decision.
Idea #1: Each player starts with the same number of points. Whenever a player uses a card, they lose an amount of points. The amount depends on the overall quality of the card. Whenever a player's card is defeated in battle, the owner loses points depending on the overall quality of the card. The owner of the card whom defeats that card gains points depending on the overall quality of the defeated card. When a player's points reach 0, they are defeated, and lose.
Idea #2: Each player starts with 0 points. Every time a card is knocked out, the player who has knocked the card out recieves 6 points. That player may then kill the card, and recieve 1 extra point, or spare it and recieve 2 extra points. The catch is, if you spare the card it will recover in a few turns (depending on the recovery stat of the card). The first player to have 28 points wins.
Please respond with your choice, or thoughts, comments, whatever. Thanks.
-Mertek
ID:154027
 Jul 30 2002, 6:16 pm
|
|
I don't really like either, but the first one sounds more realistic.
| |
My Idea:
Each player has a set value of points at the beginning of the game, which is USUALLY 2000. THese points are like life, only to stay in the game. If these are reduced to zero, you lose. The cards come in 4 types, Troop - strategy - upgrade - resources. The deck consists of 100 cards, divided in any manner of these 4 types, usually energy as a third to a half, and then the rest is whatever the owner wants. The game starts by both players drawing 10 cards, there must be at least one troop in each hand for the game to start, or else, both decks are shuffled, and the cards are re-drawn. The first round is simultaneous, the players may place as many resource, troop and upgrade cards as they like, but not attack or anything yet. the next round is decided by whoever has the fastest troop(a variable on the card), that person goes first. That player draws ONE card, only if he has less that 10 cards in his deck, and may place ONE resource per turn, ONE troop per turn, ONE upgrade per turn, or ONE strategy per turn. The player may attack with any troop he wishes that turn, if there are enemy troops on the field, he MUST attack the troops, that is, IF he is attacking. These troops battle for 1 round or more, if one troop's attack strength is greater than that of the other's defense, the defending troop is destroyed, and send to the discard pile. If both would be knocked out, both are sent to the discard pile, UNLESS one troop's speed points are 5 points higher than the other's, then that troop attacks and does damage first, if the other troop lives through the attack, it makes it's attack. when there are no defenders, the player may attack the other player's STRONGHOLD. the attack damage is equal to the troop's attack vale, and strongholds do not fight back, unless they have defensive upgrades. special attacks take resources, such as a troop with a portable cannon would be able to attack normally, but the portable cannon would be able to deal damage without engaging in combat, but it would cost a certain ammount of resources. When resources are used, it is simply turned on it's side, and NOT discarded, unless the special attack says to. You get it so far? | |
Kusanagi wrote:
The recovery one would be so abused, people could just keep beating that other card down until they win.[snip] There's a catch. The player has to choose between either taking a single point by removing the card or trying to get 6 points by risking that card being part of an army by the time it recovers. Cards are still being played while it is recovering. Removing the card might often be a better strategy. If a card is abused, just lengthen its recovery time. I rather like the second option. I am wary of the magical number 28 though. I'd like some sort of tangible ending such as running out of cards, but maybe that's just me. Actually, I think different modes of play with different game goals would be good. [edit] Ack. I think I missed the 2 point bonus for not killing. That could make abuse worse with 8 points instead of 6. | |
Sariat wrote:
Then, maybe... make the card 2 times stronger when its fully healed? If it was a real card, changing the written values would be confusing. I'd rather let other cards affect the knocked out card because the defender has to plan. The other card could possibly be a double strength thingy though. Also, I think that making any card automatically double in strength might force people to avoid the multiple knockout strategy. | |
Sariat wrote:
Then, what would be the risk of knocking out somebody? The owner of the knocked out card can use that card in a combo later. The card will be in play again. Just because it was easy to beat the first time does not mean it will be beaten with the help of future cards. Single cards can often be beaten. It's how cards are played together that counts. | |
<<>>Kusanagi<<>>