Post by TheFrog in Just did a playtest of the latest version (21.12.2025)

Viewing post in Just did a playtest of the latest version (21.12.2025)

“defence” works like this: when taking damage, defence is subtracted from the damage, and spent at a rate of 1 per damage prevented, but only if it was >0. So if defence = 3, and incoming damage = 5, then incoming damage becomes 2 and defence becomes 0. If defence = -3 and incoming damage = 5, incoming damage becomes 8, but defence stays at -3. I will try to re-phrase the explanation.

one guy who specialized in game design told me a good rules are elegant, which means the rules should be really simple to understand but hard to master (for example chess most 6 year old will understand the rules... but they probably won't play good chess) - in your game i feel like there are many "complex rules" that require some learning curve before at least me would be fully accustomed to them. The self melee and this defense rule i would put them inside this category - you implemented them for a reason - you probably like the idea of having negative defense (meaning the player suddenly taking damage) or the self harm "which can be prevented" when it is "own melee damage" but can't be prevented, when it comes to card cost - for me both of them break my basic "intuition" about how things are supposed to work in any game i played so far "defense was a good thing" and "harm was harm no matter which source" - for example after I noticed "I can't prevent harm from the cost of cards" I didn't give a second thought about preventing any harm from any card. What was giving me a hard time with understanding the defense rule is... that I tried to understand it without the "defense" you printent infront of the definintion... if you would have written "if the defense value is greater than zero an icoming attack will be reduced by..." it would have been easier for me to follow... for the sake of clarity i would probably choose a different word than defense though maybe something like "physical resistance" and then formulate it with a text rather than a formula and highlight some important aspects with color - " a physical resistance value > 0 will offer you protection, incoming damage will first reduce it to zero before you take real damage, be aware though a (red) "negative resistance value" will be added (red) "to your damage taken every single round"... maybe something in this direction if you want to go along this path. I personally think there was a reason why the games I know though, would not "mix defence" with other status effects, first basically to build up on "player intuition" and second to keep the complexity low instead of having a more complex "if then" rule you can achieve something similar by just having to simple to understand status effect like "injured" and "defense"... don't know if there would be fix that would you allow to incoperate this two status into your game by keeping everything more or less the same just to clear things a bit. ... I must say despite all the complexity i had some fun playing the game (just it was under all this clutter of many times "too much text to read"... which probably essential to do, to play your game really well" and for me being it a bit cryptic to understand... I'm used to some card games which I played quite a bit... although I'm for sure not the greatest of all card game fans... i played slay the spire for example and enjoyed it, but it wasn't my favourite game... just there i felt every card description was very self explainatory) In your game i frequently stumble over cards "which talk about status effects" I haven't even aquired yet and then it feels a bit confusing for me right from the start) ... and of course in hinsight having something to "push through" the deck fast to get more value out of bash makes a lot of sense.

The toughness does reduce card cost, so 6-cost Scales card pays for itself if you play more than 6 total cost of cards afterwards. Playing Scaled Skin + Muscles gives your 2 strength, which you did manage to pull off once. This combo is powerful but very expensive, and default healing in the deck is not quite enough to support it.

(yeah i felt not enough healing was a big issue)... didn't fully grasp the concept of toughness though... (it felt kind of expensive to pay for it... so i didn't want to invest too much time into fully understanding it)

AlSoKnown8 days ago

Thanks for putting thoughts and efforts in your reply. This kind of discussion is the main reason I develop the game, since I enjoy exploring unusual and intricate mechanics.

I can see how the current defence (and some other statuses) description is insufficient, and will certainly try to improve it. It is true that “resistance” is more often used in games with negative values. However, resistance is also strongly connected with the notion of multiplicative changes (i.e. “resist 50%”), as opposed to defence, which is frequently additive.

You are quite correct that the decision to allow negative statuses is rare among similar games, but it was quite intentional and currently every status (and even every resource except HP) can be negative, with most of them having real effect depending on the sign.

This creates some interesting and non-trivial interactions which I quite like, as well as actually reducing overall complexity in a roundabout way (since I currently have 27 statuses, which would grow to ~50 if I would replace every negative status with corresponding “inverted meaning” status).

For example, consider Wyvern monster, which does “Repeat 4: (Defend hero -1, Melee 1)”. This sounds quite weak, until you take into account compounding nature of negative defence. If hero has 8 defence, this attack do no damage. However, if initial defence is zero, it does 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 14 damage, enough to one-hit weaker heroes.

Another example is negative strength, which obviates requirement for (1) separate “weakness” status (2) additional rules on interaction between strength and weakness.

Your comparison with Slay the Spire is very on point. I intentionally deviated from “simpler is always better” rule of card design which StS embraces. I compensate for complexity a bit by simplifying other parts of the game (such as UI and game map).

i frequently stumble over cards “which talk about status effects” I haven’t even acquired yet

I did consider “trickling down” unlocks in the beginning, so that player gains access to new cards / statuses at a slower pace. Note, however, that actually the Warrior is already “simple and straightforward” character compared to later ones, and his cards are mostly very simple “gain buffs, beat enemy, heal self”. Even Heavy Blow, which is indeed hard to read on first try, is basically just “hit, getting more damage from Weight effect and Critical status”.

Later heroes / cards use indirect damage, hand manipulation, card modification, summoning, etc.

concept of toughness though… (it felt kind of expensive to pay for it…

One other issue I noted watching your playtest is that probably I should reduce probability of rare cards. Note that some cards, including Scaled Skin and Feast on Flesh are rare (with golden titles). Rare cards are more powerful, but also have higher requirements / downsides. So taking a rare card early can be viewed as a risky investment, hoping that necessary ingredients will arrive in future rewards. By default, the game scales up probability of rare cards with each stage, from 0 to 100%.

Problem is, full game contains 20 stages, but stages after 12th have to be unlocked. So the rare card probability grows too fast precisely for novice players, where it can lure them into taking too much unsupported cards. I will certainly think about balancing this.

TheFrog2 days ago (1 edit)

I played quickly some turns, but probably would need to play longer to notice the difference, i unlocked the second character once, which i find much more intuitive and fun to play than the warrior (paying with health never feels good to me) and it felt the cards i got with the second character were most of the time showing more inherent synergies.

Hmm I would say complexity is how difficult is to understand a rule and hold it in your head, for me it would help to reduce complexity, if you have special rules for - and +, so that i can more easy associate them with words. If you have a rule for - i want this behaviour and for + i want this behaviour... for me a second word would help... if the behaviour on the other hand is the "same" then a second therm would not be as urgent.

I would argue the map of slay the spire is mostly there to reduce complexity and not to increase it. If you think from the player perspective, it is build in a way that:

a) it reduces the players choices to a few simpler once he can decide up on (avoiding analysis paralysis)

b) it teaches the player core principles by putting emphasis on certain aspects of the game (for example in some occasions you might be offered a card removel) ... if the meaning of this isn't obvious first, the player has plenty of time to learn it.

In your game from my perspective you introduce everything all at once after you play a round:

The player has a lot of choices to make

- (which card do i want to keep - which might work with other cards or combos I don't know yet or put in for special purposes that will only come apperently later)

- Do I want to pay some money for removing some cards? (Paying money for doing something especially when it gets increasingly more expensive... is something many players will only carefully adopt too... as long as I'm not sure how and which card combis to aquire... will i make a mistake if I throw this card out etc. (slay the spire solves this elegantly by simply giving you a choice from time to time) and how does it compare with the other options?

- Do I want to pay money for some new choices? (Again feels strange if you're not aquainted with the deck choices yet) (which automatically conflicts with the other option)

- Then the artifacts... from which some of them are probably specialized for some combos the player don't know about yet. (Again friction for new players) (It is much less dramatic if this doesn't happen so frequently)

- Then you best take a look at the coming opponents (it's good that it's there in some sense and i only noticed recently that you can preview the monsters which are about to pop)... but would you expect the player to go over there read the description of every possible opponent and then make a choice? (So for optimal play I would have to do this and figure out about something like the wyvern there and might decide it is to dangerous)

In slay the spire most of this choices are in a "sense made for me" or i can concentrate on one of them not all of them at the same time, which reduces complexity a lot.

Yeah, I think a game which is more complex cards than slay the spire can be interesting, I think it's a matter how it gets introduced though and maybe some hardcore card game fans will enjoy your game quite a lot and are enjoying all the little twists you intented to be there and are also busy learning the tipps in the wiki.

My time unfortunately is quite limited, so I won't have the time to dig really deep into your game.

From what i experience it feels like a game where you put a lot of cool stuff in "because you liked it", which usually becomes a beast later to tame. Don't get me wrong i enjoy some complex games, but usually i prefer them to increase in complexity gradually over time - for example SpaceChem is one of my favourite games, the difference is that it starts small and gets more complex, which leads to every step of the gameplay being fun, I don't have to sit through a longer tutorial phase, just everything gets introduced step by step... so it avoids the questions - does spending time with it "is actual" worth it, will all the complexity lead to a more enjoyable experience in the end. (Same for example with chess or go directly from the start, the rules are rather simple and you can start your journey end get better over time enjoying it straight from the start without too much "homework", or even starcraft 2... which will have a lot of homework later if you want to climb in pvp).

In your game it feels like the process of creating it was "putting a lot of rules and cards in very fast" ... of course correct me if I'm wrong... normally I woud argue, when creating a complex card game, a different approach might be more suitable "start with a small amount of cards maybe 15 or something"... and then over time and based on player feedback grow the game into a more complex game, this approach has to advantages:

a) it allows you to somewhat tame the beast of complexity

b) it allows you to build a much smoother game introduction for new players (being a kind of summary of what you did to reach this point)

this doesn't mean that you can't go for your +- status ... it just means once you implemented all of them step by step over time... you can be sure that every mechanic will work and don't overwhelm the player and that there are less "unforseen complications, which are hard to fix once a big forrest of rules start to interact with each other in unforseen ways)

An example of a game which has more complex card rules though if of course magic the gathering, which introduce some complex mechanics especially given how many cards it holds... and is in sense more similar to your game. I just want to say that the learning curve and complexity of this card game is "tamed", because of two reasons:

a) there are suitable beginner decks only introducing parts of the mechanics and are optimal for getting used to the game

b) the deckbuilding and gameplay are two seperate steps... so the player has all the time in the world "to build a deck of more complicated cards" and take the synergies he understands well and create more complex decks over time, so you really are interested how "well the synergies will hold in real gameplay"

I would argue that your game would profit from a phase like this instead of having this long tutorial in the beginning start with a completly prebuild deck, which contains some interesting synergies and let the player figure them out on his own... (so he can have fun right from the start without having to learn to much)

... then maybe have a second run, where you introduce some status changes more in depth etc.

... you could go really slow here... no need to rush... aim should be to keep that the player has as much fun as possible while introducing complexity step by step and finally "have a full grown player" who has a strong basis of all the important fundamentals of the game and feels much better equiped to make the interesting choices, you want him to make.

The tutorial at the moment feels a bit forced... I thought about it and I came to the conclusion, that is due to the following reasons:

1... it is relative long without being challenging and it gives you a lot of information fast

2... it forces you to slowly go through stuff, which for most of the part is rather obvious (so it feels like a bit cumbersome to be introduced to it)

3. It forbids you to play card (one thing i figured out latetly is... that players usually hate it, if an "action" is not allowed even though they know it would do no harm

4... some of the information is a bit cryptic

Just before I forget to mention it... compared to the first version I played the warrior plays better now... ( I rememberthe health sacrifices to be much more brutal earlier... but I might be wrong)

Take away what is helpful throw away the rest... just my perspective on the introduction to your game at the moment.

AlSoKnown2 days ago (2 edits)

the second character once, which i find much more intuitive and fun to play

I am glad you liked Mage. Interestingly, while many players agree that Mage is fun to play, some also find him less intuitive, since Warrior is just straightforward “burst damage” character, while Mage requires player to plan across several turns and stall to regain resources right from the start.

If you have a rule for - i want this behaviour and for + i want this behaviour… for me a second word would help…

I understand your point, and indeed “perfectly additive” status like strength is best suited for going negative. However, even for more complicated cases, negative status may be simpler.

Consider the defence status. Currently it is “subtract from incoming damage, if was >0, spend amount equal to damage reduction”. Suppose I split it into “defence” and “vulnerability”, both of which work only if >0. Then the rules must additionally state:

If both defence and vulnerability are present, smaller one is subtracted from larger one and the difference is actually applied (which is one more thing to calculate mentally).
Cards which change the sign of statuses, like “Adapt”, must explicitly list all pairs of “opposing” statuses.
“Defend X” for non-constant X must be re-formulated as “if X > 0, apply X defence, else apply X vulnerable”
Cards which base their effects on defence, like Bash, need to be re-formulated to “Melee 1*(defence - vulnerability)” etc, (or rebalanced around new defence system).

Overall, the amount of text needed to explain the defence mechanics will grow. The radical solutions is, of course, just to remove “negative” statuses from the game, which many other similar games do. However, I specifically think that added depth of interactions is worth additional complexity here.

map of slay the spire is mostly there to reduce complexity and not to increase it

It is debatable, and StS map is of course a good design, with is why it is copied by most modern games. Still, consider that:

Right from the get-go, the map offers player to plan the entire route, which is about 4-5 decisions even before the first battle.
Possible future encounters and their relative probabilities play approximately the same role in StS and my game, but calculating probabilities is much harder in StS, since you have to account for multiple encounters at once
Opportunities like card upgrade and removal are rarer in StS, but it makes planning for them harder. Basically, you have to decide beforehand whether you want a path allowing to upgrade a card, while in my game upgrade is always available, so the decision is simpler.

All of the above is not a negatives for StS, as it is just another level of strategy, which is simpler in my game. Naturally, beginner StS players can ignore the complications and just click on next stage randomly, but that is also true for my game.

take a look at the coming opponents (it’s good that it’s there in some sense and i only noticed recently)…

That feature is very new, was just added in latest release (see devlog). You may look at the neighbor thread on this forum for a discussion which lead to this feature.

expect the player to … read the description of every possible opponent

Probably the most jarring difference is that my game explicitly exposes the complexity which is hidden in other games. For example, experienced StS players actually do the same, the difference is that they remember all the enemies and their strengths / weaknesses either in their mind or on a separate spreadsheet (see, for example, Jorbs videos for examples of the latter).

Maybe hiding information like the possible enemy list from beginner players may help…

it feels like the process of creating it was “putting a lot of rules and cards in very fast” …

You can read devlogs to gauge development pace. Looking now myself, I see that over the last year, I introduced about 120 cards, so 10 cards per month on average. Not sure how this speed compares to other games.

a game which has more complex card rules … magic the gathering … more similar to your game.

Another keen observation on your part, MtG was indeed second-largest influence after the StS. Multi-color card cost and persistent hand between turns are most obvious MtG similarities.

Regarding your suggestion of slower unlocks: although I long resisted it, it seems like the way to go since many beginner players request it.

compared to the first version I played the warrior plays better now

Perhaps the main difference is that you are now more experienced. When I watch your video, I can see that after trying and learning certain cards and items you have already improved your play (which is the intended player progression).

itch.io

Viewing post in Just did a playtest of the latest version (21.12.2025)