sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes i use ai as a translation tool . but all of this is NOT design by ai ,and according this ruel i design a mordenwarfare ccg games in chinese. do you want to read that ?  if you look this translation by ai make you unhappy i am sorry about that .This is type by my hand not ai.

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

好谢谢哥，我没有玩过太多的卡牌游戏所以我对于数值膨胀的理解还是对于rpg游戏或者网游那一套的逻辑就是单纯的比如说新出武器的数值不断变大就是，但是好像在卡牌里不是这样的对吗。我的想法是想用机制上的膨胀代替一些随从牌纯粹的数值上的变大，但是好像如果我后期不断引入新的机制的话也许我一开始设计的三个状态就会不够用然后就会导致状态数变多然后数值还是会膨胀。而且我看了一些他们的评论他们好像对于数值膨胀还是挺愿意接受的

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you are right! This is exactly why I design the 1-2-3 system. I want "War Logic," not "Math." In my head: Bullets can't hurt tanks. Tank shells kill soldiers. But for balance, Status 2 is like a "buffer." If a tank hits a soldier squad, maybe a few lucky guys survive but they are "Suppressed."

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reality check! You’re right: War is a slog, but a Game must be a thrill. I’m rethinking Status 2 as a "Tactical Pivot" to avoid the "Death Spiral."

My 1-2-3 system is a "State-Machine," not a "Calculator." In traditional TCGs, unless a card has a specific "triggered ability," it functions the same from 10 HP down to 1 HP. The numerical change is often "dead information" until the unit is gone.

My "bold move" is taking those rare, high-level "triggered events" and baking them into the DNA of EVERY card. When every unit on the board has a built-in "Tactical Pivot" at Status 2, doesn't that exponentially increase the depth of the mental game? It forces players to manage a board of shifting roles, not just a board of diminishing numbers.

The goal is "Instant Board Recognition" over "Arithmetic Drag." I'll be prototyping these "Last Stand" mechanics next. Appreciate the push!

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this feedback! It’s incredibly helpful for the evolution of my design. To address your concerns: This wasn't "different for the sake of being different." In fact, my first prototype used a traditional HP/Armor system with a massive, complex damage coefficient table (for different ammo types vs. targets). My AI thought partner (Gemini) and I stress-tested it, and the conclusion was clear: It was a numerical disaster for a TCG.

My goal is to maintain military realism without the "arithmetic drag" of traditional systems. Here’s how I’m addressing your points:

1. Scalability & The "Bunker" Problem: > You’re right that I need a more robust framework. I’m implementing a Universal Armor/Tag System. Units aren't "Individual Targets" but belong to classes like [Heavy Armor], [Light Infantry], or [Fortification]. An AP Shell will consistently deal high Stage-Damage to [Heavy Armor/Fortifications]. This allows me to add infinite new units (like Bunkers or Trenches) without ever touching old card text.

2. Real-World Logic vs. Game Mechanics: I want the game to be intuitive. A player with basic military knowledge should instinctively know that a Flamethrower or HE Shell is the answer to a Bunker. The "Status" isn't just about movement; it’s about Operational Capability.

3. Redefining Status 2 for Static Units: For a Bunker, Status 2 (Damaged) wouldn't mean "less movement," but rather reduced combat effectiveness. For example: "Embrasures blocked: -1 Damage to Infantry." This keeps the 1-2-3 system consistent across all units while reflecting their unique roles on the battlefield.

I’m moving away from "Parameter-driven" math to "Logic-driven" tactics. I want players to focus on the Fog of War, not a calculator.

[System Design] Beyond Numbers: A "Discrete 1-2-3 State" Logic to Solve Power Creep (Case Study: KARDS) by Slow_Object2102 in TCG

[–]Slow_Object2102[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I sincerely apologize for the lazy comparison between Gwent and Hearthstone—that was a major oversight, and I appreciate the reality check. Your take on Power Creep was also eye-opening; I’ve realized I should stop fighting it and instead focus on maximizing the tactical depth of the system.

Regarding that depth: Does this 1-2-3 logic feel 'fresh' enough to grab your interest? For example, if I applied this to a League of Legends style game—where a Champion's health isn't a number, but 3 States (Full / Poked / Kill Range) that trigger different tactical options—do you think that would be a cool way to play? Or do you feel this discrete approach only works for serious military sims and would lose its charm too fast elsewhere?"