Declaring War on Buttons
- teejaydub
- Nov 1, 2018
- 6 min read
This'll be a blog post that discusses a few game design decisions that I made within a (slightly) larger project.
In an effort to get better at game design, I've been making some small scale games with different challenges to explore game design problems. These past couple weeks, the focus has been single input systems in a video game - gameplay that relies on one single button. Most of the time, this system is seen in those mindless, clicker games. You tap on the screen, in no particular location, and something happens. Flappy Bird would be another example. I was even able to find "one button" game jams. The question I had was, how complex of a game can you make with a one button system? Well, first I want to take a look at some good ol' fashioned, family friendly "War".
War, what is it good for?
Why use "War" as the foundation of this challenge? If you've never played "War", it's a very simple card game that uses a standard deck of playing cards. Instructions here.
"War" almost has a gambling appeal to it. You derive fun from your winnings - you don't know how much you'll win, but when you do win, you assign a value to the cards you gain. Winning a 9 is more satisfying than winning a 2. And because you lose the game when you run out of cards, they gain another level of value, as they are your assets, or currency. When "War" is declared, the gambling stakes are higher because you stand to lose or gain more than usual. More of your assets are at risk. Looking at a larger time scale of gameplay, you have a positive, "winning" feeling when you have control over the majority of the cards in the deck. On the flip-side, if you are losing, the feeling of making a comeback is just as enjoyable and rewarding.
Because of the sense of competition, the gambling appeal, and the simplicity of user input, we're going to use "War" as the basis for this fun one button challenge. We're gonna transform it into a fast paced, collectible deckbuilding card game.
War of the Monsters
The header of this section is actually the title to a fantastic PS2 game. But I digress.
How is this game an evolution of "War"?
Each card is a monster with a "power" value
There will be three unique monster types for variety of playstyles
You can play more than just one card from the top of your deck
An extremely simple "Mana" system will stop you from playing every card in your deck.
Shorter, quick paced battles
There is a five-second window in which you can play cards from your deck, and combat resolves after the time runs out.
Smaller deck sizes and deck building
You will compose your own 10 card deck with cards that you unlock from playing the game.
Card values are additive and don't replace the previous card played
So if the first monster you play has 2 power, and the second has 3 power, then your "Total Battle Power" is 5. That's the score your opponent has to beat.
That's enough info right there for a pitch+rules combo. So, lets show that now. But first, here's a look at the main menu.
Pitch+Rules
In WarDeck, the classic card game of War is reinvented into a fast paced, collectible deckbuilding card game. Construct a 10 card deck from over 75 unlockable monster cards, spread over three different monster types, each with unique attributes. Take your deck into war, where the biggest monsters win! Each battle spans only a few seconds within the two-minute match, so you have to act fast. Drop a card into battle, then risk another card to add on to your total battle power! Bigger risks lead to bigger rewards.
To battle in WarDeck, tap on the screen to reveal the top card of your deck and add it to the battlefield. Your opponent will play one, two, or even three cards from their deck in a single battle. Each card you play adds to your total battle power, and the same goes for your opponent. Watch your mana levels - you can only play additional cards if you have enough mana. The first card costs zero mana, but each additional card costs one more than the last. So if you want to play four cards in one battle, you'll need the maximum of six mana to make that move! (1st card - free, 2nd card - 1 mana, 3rd card - 2 mana, 4th card - 3 mana)
When the battle timer runs out, the two total battle powers are compared. If you are the winner of the battle, all the cards on the battlefield get added to the bottom of your deck! If you lose, your cards are collected and added to your opponent's deck.
You win the war when you control all of your opponents cards or have the most cards at the end of the two-minute match.
You lose the war if you run out of cards or have the least cards at the end of the two-minute match!
Beasts, and Aberrations, and Undead, oh my!
How should these three monster types be different?
The easy answer is to take the "rock-paper-scissors", or Pokemon approach. This is the idea of one monster type that is powerful against another, but vulnerable to a third type.
We can't do Pokemon's "fire beats grass, water beats fire", and here's why I'm against it: If you're in a losing situation, your thought process becomes "Man, the only way out of this situation is if I had an Undead card. Well I guess I'll draw another card and hope it's Undead." This doesn't feel as much as a choice as it feels like you're grasping at straws as a player. Now, I understand that this is a game that hinges on random chance and gambling, so players will inevitably have a "wishing" attitude when playing a card. Ideally, though, I want the player to be happy and rewarded with whatever they draw from their deck, not penalized.
The other issue with the "rock-paper-scissors" mechanic is that it doesn't lend itself to different playstyles. As a player constructing a deck, you'd say "Yeah I'm going heavy Undead for this deck because my opponent is heavy Aberration".
The challenge now becomes creating a unique gameplay mechanic for each card type while not subverting any other card type, and of equal importance, not breaching the one button rule. The unique effects of each type have to be subtly positive, even passive effects. To help narrow down what these might be, we have to break down what the player cares about.
Fortunately, there are only a handful of variables during gameplay, and the player should care about every one of them:
Number of cards in player deck and enemy deck
Time left in battle & match
Current mana level
Total battle power of player and enemy
When you break it down like that, it becomes easier to see ways that a different card type might modify or enhance one of those values.
Here's what was decided:
In WarDeck, there are currently three monster types.
The first is Beast. Beasts offer a more powerful card with no strings attached, but also no additional abilities. You start the game with only Beast cards.
Aberrations are the second type of monster. While they are the weakest of the bunch, Aberrations make up for it in their ability to become more powerful in battle. Aberration cards gain two power for each point of mana spent to play it.
Undead are the third type of monster. Undead are weaker than Beasts, but have a very powerful ability. If you win a battle, you steal an additional card for each Undead card you played during that battle. Since the name of the game is having control over the most cards, the Undead are a cruel but effective way of achieving victory.
Conclusion
You can add a lot of complexity to a game with simple inputs, but it doesn't make it an easy task. The game that I made, as it stands now, totally hinges on being well balanced. This game is not at all balanced. There's a rudimentary equation for calculating cards you unlock, and an even more rudimentary "AI" deck construction equation. Add on to that, the actual opponent AI is simply a random number generator. There would have to be an overhaul to the opponent's decision making to improve that aspect of the game.
One of the best ways to collect data on how you should balance a game is through playtesting, but I don't have enough interest in furthering this project much more to warrant doing all of that. So let's add this game to the pile of ones that are "good enough" and that I learned something from, and move on!
This was all programmed, designed, and drawn with a little over a week's worth of work put in. Getting ideas from friends, just brainstorming all the different possibilities was so much fun. Thanks to Jay, Alex, Juan, and everyone else who responded when I bugged them about ideas.
Comments