Play tested Town and Adventurer v0.2 last night. It definitely felt more like a game this time, but the cooperative element felt a bit deemphasized. Part of this was the fact that the first version had no costs on the card, so you could storm off complicated lines of play.
Feedback this time...
The other idea is inspired by ghost kitchens. This is something that popped up here in Belgium in the last couple of years, but more or less a kitchen that will have multiple "restaurant" listings on Uber Eats, and only exist for delivery. The same kitchen might have a classical Belgian...
With some time in the think tank, I now have two directions I'm considering:
Town and Adventurer, v 0.2
One of the worst things about the first prototype was the damage system. It was very restrictive. Some enemies had to be hit first with fire, then with two ice, then with lightning. This...
First playtest is in the books.
Things that went well
Simultaneous turns felt really good.
Purchases going to the top of the deck of your choice is golden. Opened up cool lines of play like: "buy a card, put it on top of partner's deck, play card to make partner draw 2, they use that card...
I'm in the early stages of working on an asymmetrical cooperative deckbuilder. For me mechanics come first and theming last, but roughly:
- one player is the town
- one player defends the town
The Circle of Life
Each card has a battle side (top) and a town side (bottom).
In this game...
There were a couple posts I've deleted because they were crossing the line for me in terms of tone. You can disagree with each other, but let's try to keep the tone more positive and respectful.
:slicin:
Out of all of this I mostly think 'loyalty' is badly named. Full agree that battles are awkward flavor-wise and don't feel like battles. Maybe the mechanics are solid enough to justify. One of the best things about Netrunner was that everything could be "attacked", so more permanents that...
I have a thought but not sure how half-baked it is... some idea that signaling is more relevant to high-power cards (relative to your environment) than low-power cards. If these cards are 10th-15th picks, by the time I'm picking them I've already seen like 80+ other cards.
Generally agree...
I mostly agree with Brad, but to ask a probing question: what is the purpose of your classification. In the draft, the card is just the card, so what design problems are being addressed by your classification system? (no wrong answers)