Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+2)

First the good:

-The first nodes are very good at introducing the game's unique mecanics
-Binding animations are cool. It is a good thing that they can be skipped, as I don't see myself watching them more than once per run.
-The aestetic is quite unique

The big point:

The game balance seemed off to me. With the binding/upgrade mechanics, the idea is that you want to quickly combine your skills together, forge a few powerful attacks and use card removes to get rid of extra attacks so you have a thin deck full of crafted powerful cards. Why not, it gives the game quite a different gameplay feeling compare with let's say slay the spire. My problem is that the game keep proposing in its card rewards a lot of cards that doesn't seem to justify their inclusion in the deck by themselves (except may be reckless assault who is the only high damage card I remember). For example cards like "deals 1 vuln to all enemies", "deal 3 damages to all enemies" or "next turn get an extra bead". It feels very weird that the cards the player can get have a very difficult time comparing against the basic block or the opportunity cost of simply combining two blocks. Attack augment follow the same pattern, why pick one when you could combine two blocks and card remove an attack?

The rational move is to skip card rewards until you get something really interesting or until you have already combined everything (and added a knob to every cards, for good measure). At least with this demo, the game didn't give me a reason to act in any other way, hence how I finished my runs with so few cards. Once a strong deck is assembled, basically nothing can perce through my block-blocks, not even the boss. I just need some extra damage.

In short, I don't know where you are going with the balancing, and since I don't have the full picture and can't say how much of a problem it actually is. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the matter.

=== Some other minor things I noted ===

It is very counter-intuitive that a cantrip card combined with a non-cantrip card doesn't cost 0.

Reckless assault being a skill seems like a big flavour fail.

Me trying the number change node:
-Wait, I only gain 3 on one of the two numbers of my block-block card?
-Wait, why can't I go back to choose another card?

Seymour enemy: It is very hard to keep track of their damage, as you need to take into consideration the hand discard (and possible reshuffle). I would suggest to use the scrap size when "end of the turn" is pressed instead.

The anchor has the same "hand discard at the end of the turn" confusion. Also, I don't think it should trigger the reflect effect, as the player will likely not realise that the anchor will deal damage at the end of the turn.

I saw the scrap pile saying it is empty when it wasn't (I think it was when there was no card in it at the start of the turn, after I just played one card)

Be wary with healing even if it up to 20HP, some degenerate people may stall fights until they get every scrap of heal they might get.

Conclusive: The "deals 5 extra damage" is not reflected on the card damage value, which is very confusing

Stretch => attack point => you mean attack bead?

I'm glad you liked the intro and aesthetic ^_^

Yes, the trouble is that all cards need to be relatively simple so that they can be combined with others, but that can make them sound uninteresting when they are offered. I think my leading idea to address this is to simply disallow the player from combining a card with itself. By removing Block + Block, the player would be forced to take new cards if they want to take advantage of skill binding. Which should force the player into a more fun play pattern all around, and also make it a lot harder to turbo stack armor. Thank you for highlighting this issue!

Would you say the confusion is due to the fact that cantrip is a keyword? Or that it is unclear how the cost gets determined? The way it works is that the cost of cards is averaged together and rounded up. So a card costing 1 + a card costing 0 = 0.5 which rounds up to 1. Does that part make sense? Does it need to be explained in game? I was hoping being able to see the preview would be enough. I think it can be confusing because I have the cantrip keyword which just poofs. I just worry that it wont be very clear that a card is free without it.

What makes you say that Reckless Assault is a flavor fail? I don't think I want anything which deals damage to automatically be an attack, that is very limiting design-wise and makes skill centric decks not viable. What did you feel like makes a card an attack versus a skill?

Yes, I probably need some means of going back during the Magpie Event. Its a little clunky to implement so it was deprioritized. You can also choose a number that you cannot use, which is a higher priority. I'll try to address both issues when I revisit.

Agreed about Seymours, it's basically impossible to correctly predict. I think I will try your lock in EOT suggestion. 

I have also noted down the other small items to look for: anchor interactions, scrap pile bug, conclusive values, stretch outdated wording.

Thank you for bringing up your concerns on the balancing/problematic play patterns which can emerge. I think they can be a little hidden in the playtests because people generally try out different things, but if I don't address it and leave a clear optimal way to min/max the early game, then the replayablity of my game suffers horribly. I really appreciate the insight on that front!!

(+1)

-Banning Block-Block may be a good idea to solve the issue, yes. It would make the "plan" quite different. 
-I was convinced a combined cantrip would be free because of the keyword and because the effect of the base cantrip card was so weak.
-I don't have any problem with the fact that reckless assault is a skill per say, but I feel it should be called something else. Reckless assault evoke an melee attack card, not a skill card. Maybe something like "Barrage" (I am not good at finding names)

Glad you found my feedback interesting. ๐Ÿงš

(+1)

About "banning a Block Block", basically yes, you shouldn't be allowed to combine any two same cards, not only Blocks. This feature meant to be used to merge two different actions into one card, not to double-strengthen the only one certain.

(+1)

Yep, I'm working on a patch right now which disallows combining of the same card. I think this will encourage more fun experimental gameplay and removes the simple strategy of block + block = win :P