|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:47 am
We know the templates:
Generic Leader A
Stamina:[x]
Income:[x]
Deck Points:[x]
Ability:[x]
Generic Creature A
Stamina:[x]
Power:[x]
Deck Cost:[x]
Summon Cost:[x]
Ability:[x]
Generic Hero A
Stamina:[x]
Power:[x]
Deck Cost:[x]
Summon Cost:[x]
Ability:[x]
Generic Structure A
Stamina:[x]
Deck Cost:[x]
Summon Cost:[x]
Ability:[x]
Generic Item A
Deck Cost:[x]
Summon Cost:[x]
Ability:[x]
Uses:[x]
Generic Event A
Deck Cost:[x]
Casting Cost:[x]
Ability:[x]
Duration:[x]
What we don't know is what to put in these fields. If you have an idea of how the game should play out, feel free to post it in this think-tank thread.
Right now, creating the alpha then getting the beta running makes more sense than claiming franchises. After all, playtesting the beta will determine whether or not this is a huge waste of guild resources.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:01 am
Leader
Stamina: 5000
Income: 500 (500-800)
Deck Points: 4000
Ability: TBA
...I'm thinking of bumping the deck point total up just a little. You'll understand in a minute.
Hero/Strong Creature
Deck Cost: 1000 (800-1000)
Summon: 500 (500-1000)
Power: 500-1000+
Toughness: 500-1000+
Ability:
Obviously Heroes are going to be on the lower end of power and have great abilities. Either that, or they will take a while to play.
Average Creature
Deck Cost: 300 (300-400)
Summon: 150 (150-200)
Power: 300-500
Toughness: 300-500
Ability:
No comment; the numbers fit.
Weak Creature
Deck Cost: 200 (150-200)
Summon: 100 (100-150)
Power: 100-300
Toughness: 100-300
Ability:
Creatures with abilities will have little attack and defense at this tier of power.
Fortress/Massive Structure
Deck Cost: 800 (800-1000)
Summon: 1000 (1000-1500)
Power: - (0-300)
Toughness: 1500 (1500-3000)
Ability:
We might not need structure points if we make structures in the same model as creatures, but more expensive to summon.
Temple/Support Structure
Deck Cost: 300 (300-400)
Summon: 800 (500-1000)
Power: -
Toughness: 1000 (900-1500)
Ability:
These will most likely be your income/shelter buildings. I've set them up in a manner that it takes 3 or more units of the same class as the structure to tear it down. Makes sense to me.
Shack/Common Structure
Deck Cost: 200 (150-200)
Summon: 200 (150-200)
Power: -
Toughness: 500 (300-900)
Something akin to a yurt or sod house; easy to set up, but just as easy to destroy.
Artifact
Deck Cost: 900 (800-1000)
Summon: 500 (500-1000)
Ability:
A rare item; could be an equip, could be a support, could be expendable.
Equipment
Deck Cost: 300 (300-400)
Summon: 150 (150-200)
Ability:
Common Equipment. Think plate-mail and rapiers, or beam swords and Franklin Badges.
Potion/expendable item
Deck Cost: 200 (150-200)
Summon: 100 (100-150)
Ability:
This would be something along the lines of a health potion or a bom-omb. Good for one shot, then discarded.
Edit:Alpha re-worked and awaiting approval. Spells to be added if needed, but should be self-explanatory based on the pattern already set in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:09 pm
This is why Tyhoon is awesome. I'll look at these numbers in better detail later on when I'm feeling more intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:30 pm
Ok, I view that income as a little insanely high if the basic soldier only costs 100 points. In theory, by the game's mechanics you could have 15? (too lazy to do the exact math) soldiers out per turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:23 pm
If everything else looks okay, I guess I can go ahead and make the edit.
I thought that this would work out though; in theory, both players would have the same or similar units in large numbers, making heroes and strategy stand out over "LULZ aTTaCK SPAM!!!11!one!"
That's kinda the reason I made the building so tough and relatively cheap deck-wise. I could cut its summon cost and fix the problem that way...
Which do I choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:36 pm
Depower both income and buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:21 am
Income dropped by half and structure efficiency increased. I might drop it's defense value too, maybe to about 600 without the sacrifice effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:44 pm
You can still build about 15 soliders per turn... let's aim for smaller numbers.
Also, you are aware that we're using only video game sets, so it might be more productive to try using bowser's forces or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:48 pm
Aim for something like:
- 1 Hero per turn
- 3 standard cretures per turn
- 5 weak cretures per turn
(items/spells will obviously vary according to what it is)
- 1 moderate wall per 2 turns
- 1 income building per turn
(obviously this is along the lines of "choose one of these per turn")
I think we should also have a building limit according to leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:46 pm
nitnit You can still build about 15 soliders per turn... let's aim for smaller numbers. Hmm, yes...quite...valid point.Also, you are aware that we're using only video game sets, so it might be more productive to try using bowser's forces or something. Actually, this is the Alpha. This is pretty much the testing site where we discuss numbers and balance issues. Once we've figured out the basics, we can work on the beta, which would be pretty much everything else.Aim for something like: - 1 Hero per turn - 3 standard cretures per turn - 5 weak cretures per turn (items/spells will obviously vary according to what it is) - 1 moderate wall per 2 turns - 1 income building per turn (obviously this is along the lines of "choose one of these per turn") I think we should also have a building limit according to leader. How does a summon limit sound? Yeah, it doesn't sound to good to me either. I can see events causing that, but I don't think that would help the game. Structure points, like I suggested earlier, would probably work out, with each carrying an initial cost and the leader having a total. I'll start crunching numbers I suppose.I guess I'll get to work on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 1:23 am
nitnit Depower both income and buildings. Did both in one shot while re-working it. Looks better and more balanced in my opinion. ...I guess I should have done this sooner... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:30 pm
...Well, since I haven't gotten any negative feedback about the way things are currently set up, I guess it's time to develope a beta and call in some testers.
I figure 3 sets and 6-8 testers should be enough of a data pool to start work on the actaul game sets. Making the sets 30 cards or so should be relatively easy and provide a nice variety for the beta. If things turn out good, we might just grandfather the sets in.
Any volunteers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:27 am
Please volunteer?
I really don't want to develope the beta by myself, but I want to see this project move a little.
If it helps, I have an idea for how to work the beta:
Set 1: Generic Fantasy (Creature Dominant)
Set 2: Generic Sci-Fi (Spell/Event Dominant)
Set 3: Generic Military (Item/Equipment Dominant)
If things don't pick up by Wednesday I'll go ahead and develope the beta sets on my own, but they might not be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:44 pm
It isn't so much that a set is dominant in something, nor is anything generic, it has to do with games.
For example, if you have Fire Emblem, you're going to have a good deal of Creatures, Heroes, Item/Equip, and a solid amount of spells/events as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:36 pm
nitnit It isn't so much that a set is dominant in something, nor is anything generic, it has to do with games. For example, if you have Fire Emblem, you're going to have a good deal of Creatures, Heroes, Item/Equip, and a solid amount of spells/events as well. First, I'm sorry that I lied. I don't have anything relevant to post for the game today. Give me about five days and I'll have something out. Second, YOU'RE MISSING THE FRIGGEN' POINT! Making everything game based and enjoying the hypothetical match-ups are great, but we need to make sure that the system is balanced so that the game is actually fun and you don't end up playing against the same deck 4 times during a tourney. Numbers are fun and video games are fun, but in order to not screw up this game, we need to know which numbers are right and which numbers need tweaking. Hence the BETA sets and the test players. If someone else jumped in and volunteered, they could have gotten a head start on the game by having 1/2-1/5 of their set finished and ready for release. Since it's just me for now, I'm going to make 3 hypothetical sets that can mix-and-match and will have generally different strategies, albeit simple ones, so that way we, (I), can figure out what's balanced as far as costs, events, spells, powers, and abilities are concerned. Edit:Let me try to simplify this, as you've constantly missed the point and I seem to be failing rather hard when it comes to pointing it out. These are the alpha and beta sets of the game. The goal is ambitious and the concept a little lofty. It was too unstable for my taste and was litterally laying stagnant, with nothing more than a growing list of names, so I decided to make a few hypothetical sets to make things easier for everyone else. The alpha was designed to act as a frame for the beta, and the beta will be refined to act as a resource and structure for the regular game, if it ever comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
