Heyo, I want to bring this up carefully because I don’t want to assume bad intent. I’m seeing a lot of shared similarity with my game, Dwarfing Dreams, especially around the core idea of cards using size ratio / size delta to change your cards' effects? That size-delta based card design and game mechanic was one of the core ideas I was REALLY proud of innovating with DD, so seeing it show up here without any visible credit feels honestly really uncomfortable. From my perspective, it feels less like broad genre overlap and more like drawing from my very specific design identity. Could you please disclose whether DD was an inspiration, and if so, credit it clearly? I know this is a niche sphere, and I’m all for innovation within it, but the lack of disclosure is irking me a bit. I’d appreciate some clarity here, because the overlap feels hard to ignore to me.

Thanks for clarifying - that helps.

On Bellatrix/Alya specifically: those aren't meant as settled "identity copies" so much as bare starter decks to poke at mechanics. Roughly, Bellatrix is my burn/pressure stand-in, Alya is the combo/filter one, and Andromeda is more midrange-ish - basically classic CCG archetype shapes. I wanted a kind of rock-paper-scissors relationship between them, so there would be some natural strengths and weaknesses rather than one deck simply being absolutely better than another. I don't know DD's deck design deeply enough to say whether the similarities are coincidental, but if the archetypes naturally map to things like aggression, control, combo, recursion, ramp, cycling, etc., then some mechanical overlap is probably inevitable. Both of us are drawing from things that already exist and are well known. :)

Anyway, the key here is that I intend to grow this game into a proper deckbuilder (the "CCG" framing is basically me planting that flag early), so these hero decks are scaffolding for testing the systems before actual deck construction exists. The heroine gives you the power and stats; the deck will eventually be user-made, with collection, progression, boosters, etc. One day, maybe. We'll see. :)

The "what changes when you're bigger vs. smaller" layer, for me, is mostly a game-design problem I ran into while building. I'd be curious to hear how you came up with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason was the same, because it is pretty obvious, but for me it started very simply: early on, I mostly wanted the fantasy of going big.But if mass is already feeding HP, damage, etc., the lead snowballs hard. That's okay. But if the CPU somehow gets bigger than the player, for example, the player can end up with no real way to catch up. The current build isn't balanced yet, so I'm not saying this is solved, but I really don't like situations where falling behind effectively means the game is already over.So I started looking for a simple comeback/catch-up handle: if you're behind on size, there should be things you can take advantage of because of that, rather than simply being punished for being behind. Having cards that care about being behind was me addressing that precise problem.

Thanks for the good luck, too - means a lot.

 Umazed