Glyph Shilling General

There is no "official" way to win the game. I've been having too much fun with the simple and elegant mechanics to really stress about that. I will need to do a few test runs before I can figure out what a default match's win conditions will be.
I'm going to guess that the most common rule is to deplete your opponents deck. You draw cards hoping you can sustain your own deck longer and deplete your opponents faster.
Stalemates are possible. Avoiding them tends to water down game potential in my opinion. With the mechanics available in the game, a player should be able to build up enough for themselves in order to defeat an opponent though. I think it's more likely that exponential growth of power will help bring a conclusion to the game.

With that being said, about no "official rules", the cards simply have effects on each other. There's no standard framework for "attack and defense". Or for classifying summons. The scalability of this game comes with glyphs & player content on the blockchain. Glyphs & cards will be added to the game by players.
One thing I worry about is complexity and accomplishing a slick design.

Other than trying to generate interests and answer questions, I'm looking for some cool & edgy ideas to add into the "just for fun" release.

File: images (5).jpg (8KB, 280x180px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 280x180px

I am meeting with an old friend to iron out the rest of the rules to this game this weekend.

One thing I am trying to sort out is something called "Hidden Glyphs".
Here's the challenge: I want a "Key" card to interface with a "Door" card, but I can't make a general "Door" glyph, because all special "doors" are portals.
So in order to select a door, I need to come up with a slick way to mark all doors in the same way.

The only way I can think of is the order of the glyphs & their containers.
Glyphs will often be inside a container. Some basic geometrical outline. This container represents different things:
Circle - (Life)
Square - [Material]
Diamond - <~Passive>
Triangle Up - <+Buff>
Triangle Down - <-DeBuff>
Wide Hexagon - {(Area of Effect)}
House-like Pentagon - [<Building>]
Square Top Round Bottom - <[Vehicle]>
Rounded Top Square Bottom - {Meta}
Rounded Top Square Bottom - [{Device}]
No Container - |Basic|

Stone golems would be made of [{device}] & [materials] while Living creatures would be made of organic (Life).

So if I want to have "hidden glyph" meanings then I'd have to find a solid way to make sure I can make an order pattern appear however I wanted it. Containers are an evident way to do that because I can use position offsetting too. Problem is, a tiny-gnome elephant isn't going to use up the same amount of containers as a regular elephant is. (Life) & [Material] are generally used to represent how much life something has. So I can't say all circle-square-square-circle are elephants, so in order to boost all elephants with some effect just target circle-square-square-circle.
Using arbitrary basic glyphs is a little scary. How do you really use the right arbitrary glyph? That glyph can now be interacted with, does it introduce glitchy "side effects"?
I am going to try to figure this out without having an "elephant" glyph for every "elephant' that anyone ever comes up with.
What if it's more than just an elephant?

File: a1c9fb7541e0b120593146a599097e75.jpg (121KB, 736x1179px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 736x1179px

|Flower|{Dark}{Evil}{Shadow}{Black}|Flower|
The Black lotus has the power to channel Shadow, Dark, Evil,
and Black energies interchangeably.

i am a bit curious unfortunately i don't understand one fucking sentence from the clusterfuck you tried to describe.
certainly your game will have no future if its own creator can't even menage to explain it in words or pictures.

i'd say it's fine for you to choose your win conditions later into the development when you understand more what can you do with your system but it's a bit awkward for anyone that picks up a weird game to not even know its win conditions so i'd say it's better to have a static win condtion more than " every deck has its win condition!".
If you look at any game's manual the win condition is usually in the first lines of text and that's very good.

not knowing anything about your game i'd advise you to not get stuck on the concept of turns and having to draw cards each turn.
Looking at games like Gwent you can learn different approaches to time, action sequencing and card draws than what MtG and Yugi do.

Yeah, it sounds awfuly unelegant, at least how you describe it. I think you should first work in an elevator pitch and start trimming out fat.
Some diagrams on how all this works would be nice as well.

>>54182832
Have you played Innovation? might help you get some ideas.

File: images (95).jpg (5KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x201px

>>54184625
>>54184479

I am thinking of just making an online game. It'd be relatively easy to program.

Thanks for the feedback.


I was going to start doing a lot of example concepts because I was worried about not having enough cards. Then I just found great resources for very diverse creature art work and other stuff.
I was really hoping that the simplicity of the game would help the visualization of play.
I haven't even drawn out a basic board. That may help.

I want to check out these other card games.
I am trying to

Theoretically* the default win condition would be "Deplete your opponents Deck" or "Deplete your opponents Deck & Burry their field. Render them defenseless"

*Theoretically: I'm trying to retain a certain set of rules and a particular system. I'm working from the middle outwards.
I'll tell you what though. Something I know you're not going to like. 2 things actually. And it's because of something I really want to hold on to. Event trigger loops. Loops can't be infinite because your deck is fuel for your actions. One question that remains is, should it count for the first action? Probably not. Every time you take a following action you lay a card down from the bottom of your deck, a counter. If two cards are triggering each other into an infinite loop, one's effect will eventually just peter out. When you're done chaining your effects. Just put your deck back. It's there just for fuel.
The 2nd thing you might not like is, players get to decide what order things are triggered. If there are 3 cards that all MUST respond to < a direct effect to your deck > then one of the players gets to decide the order.

I will obviously want to create some new vocabulary for things like "stack" and "horizontal". Stack is redundant/implied. If the card is held, and if the holder is horizontal.

>pic related
This card can not be re-oriented by cards with more than three ( )

lol. made the foot note and forgot to explain what I'm trying to do with this game. Lol. yeah. it's a load at once.

I'm confident in it. if everything is feasible (not annoying to do) so far.