|
Hey guys. Lots of nerds here, so I figured some folks might be interested in this.
I've been making card games (like Magic, not like Poker) for the past few years, off and on, as a creative endeavor. I finally have decided to share my latest game, called Factions CCG, since I think this one is actually quite solid. The game is rather complicated, which is good because I like complicated games and it's my game. Because of this, I want to present the game over time, and in more palatable chunks than a dense rules document, so I'm doing this as a blog. I just started today with a couple of posts with some general information on the game's mechanics. The blog is located here.
I had my wisdom teeth removed in an epic 4 hour surgery yesterday (the bottom ones were sideways, making it a much more harrowing operation), so I've been on strong painkillers all day. If there are any glaring errors, like overt nonsense, I'd love to know about them.
So yeah, check it out. I will post more over the next couple days to paint a more comprehensive picture of how the game is played.
|
The Build Order is the part of the Factions CCG the creates a board consisting of the buildings
first sentence has an error ^that
|
Thanks. I'm not exactly 100%, lol. ugh.
|
I bookmarked it and I'll check back from time to time -- seems interesting.
I obviously don't know the full mechanics of the game, so take this for what it's worth (not much), but I had a couple concerns:
1. "Unlike many other CCGs, Factions requires that you possess most of the cards to play the game." -- this just seems like it could be very troublesome depending on how it is implemented. Would playing without all of the cards be comparable to playing solitaire with a deck of 51, or more like playing golf with no putter? Also, if you opted to release more sets, would those then be required for use as well, or only the original first set?
2. "This turn, ignore whatever words you want on target card." -- This seems very open ended to me, which could lead to some interesting situations. I realize this is not MTG, but using this card with just about any other MTG card would yield ridiculous results.
Say I have a card that reads: "Destroy target land" -- If I remove the word "target" I could "destroy land" (all land? how exactly would I interpret that?). I could also remove the word "land" -- leaving me with the ability to simply "destroy target" (can I destroy anything? how about I just choose to destroy my opponent... I win?). Better still, I could remove the words "target land" and just "destroy" (do I turn into the Hulk at this point or what?  )
This isn't even to mention that almost any card with the word "tap" in it could suddenly be an instant win -- or very close to it.
I realize I am using MTG phrasing so it doesn't really apply. I just wanted to make the point that cards so open ended could lead to confusion.
Anyway, I look forward to reading your updates.
|
On March 10 2010 19:47 Slox wrote:2. "This turn, ignore whatever words you want on target card." -- This seems very open ended to me, which could lead to some interesting situations. I realize this is not MTG, but using this card with just about any other MTG card would yield ridiculous results. Say I have a card that reads: "Destroy target land" -- If I remove the word "target" I could "destroy land" (all land? how exactly would I interpret that?). I could also remove the word "land" -- leaving me with the ability to simply "destroy target" (can I destroy anything? how about I just choose to destroy my opponent... I win?). Better still, I could remove the words "target land" and just "destroy" (do I turn into the Hulk at this point or what? ) This isn't even to mention that almost any card with the word "tap" in it could suddenly be an instant win -- or very close to it. I realize I am using MTG phrasing so it doesn't really apply. I just wanted to make the point that cards so open ended could lead to confusion. Anyway, I look forward to reading your updates.
hahaah that made my day
|
The Madhatter has thirty-five hitpoints.
|
Random suggestion for your blog: images, even shitty prototypes, would really help draw in potentially interested people. Seeing a convoluted card and then getting interested in all the features displayed seems like it would hook in more people than seeing ONLY the rules displayed in text.
|
On March 10 2010 19:47 Slox wrote:I bookmarked it and I'll check back from time to time -- seems interesting. I obviously don't know the full mechanics of the game, so take this for what it's worth (not much), but I had a couple concerns: 1. "Unlike many other CCGs, Factions requires that you possess most of the cards to play the game." -- this just seems like it could be very troublesome depending on how it is implemented. Would playing without all of the cards be comparable to playing solitaire with a deck of 51, or more like playing golf with no putter? Also, if you opted to release more sets, would those then be required for use as well, or only the original first set? 2. "This turn, ignore whatever words you want on target card." -- This seems very open ended to me, which could lead to some interesting situations. I realize this is not MTG, but using this card with just about any other MTG card would yield ridiculous results. Say I have a card that reads: "Destroy target land" -- If I remove the word "target" I could "destroy land" (all land? how exactly would I interpret that?). I could also remove the word "land" -- leaving me with the ability to simply "destroy target" (can I destroy anything? how about I just choose to destroy my opponent... I win?). Better still, I could remove the words "target land" and just "destroy" (do I turn into the Hulk at this point or what? ) This isn't even to mention that almost any card with the word "tap" in it could suddenly be an instant win -- or very close to it. I realize I am using MTG phrasing so it doesn't really apply. I just wanted to make the point that cards so open ended could lead to confusion. Anyway, I look forward to reading your updates.
Thanks for the feedback. Funny and clever.
To address your questions: 1) Basically you need whatever cards you might want in your build order. This means that if your opponent goes cavalry and you want to get the spearman technology to help counter it, you can research and put that card into play via your build order, regardless of whether or not it was in your build order to begin with. Niche cards and cards used in specific strategies wouldn't be needed by every deck. If I were to market the game, I would release it like the Game of Thrones LCG, where you just buy the whole set instead of boosters. I love limited play in Magic and this marketing model doesn't work for that, but it seems like the best way to go about it.
2) Yeah, my playtesting buddy and I have been seeing all sorts of interactions that are super imba with that card. I chose that one to show first because it a) is very simple and doesn't rely on rules to get its function across, b) is super powerful and just screams broken, which is the point I was making about discipline cards, and c) it shows how wide-ranging and clever discipline cards can be. That said, I'm sure it'll require some fixing, because as you point out, it's wicked busted.
But yeah, thanks. The best part of finally sharing this stuff is getting some new perspectives. I'll be tossing some more info up there over the course of the day, since I am still going to be sitting around hazy, with a soreness in my jaw.
EDIT: Yeah, Tuna, that is a good idea. I've been having roadblocks to posting this stuff so I just wanted to start up. I'd like to make it more visually interesting as I go along though. I know it looks very bland and boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
