Unity Pornstar Battle II [v1.0.1] [LewdMonkey]

[Ptah]

Here is a proposal for a deep modification of the gameplay (created with Photoshop editing tools). I am also attaching the full document that explains the mechanics in detail.

DOC : PBATTLE2 L&P SYSTEM 0.1
The document contains "bookmarks" for chapters, so feel free to use them for easier navigation.


PREVIEW :
View attachment 4447653

You keep the moronic concept of item cards instead of giving those skills to the CHARACTER cards, sorry that's stupid concept as the same as it is the game right now.
You CAN'T build a card game where the characters have only 2 or even 3 stats. Seems something that you and the dev keep not understanding...

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

You keep the moronic concept of item cards instead of giving those skills to the CHARACTER cards, sorry that's stupid concept as the same as it is the game right now.
You CAN'T build a card game where the characters have only 2 or even 3 stats. Seems something that you and the dev keep not understanding...

It would be really valuable to hear your concrete ideas, as repeating certain points without expanding further doesn’t fully showcase the potential of your observations.

Why not take this opportunity to share your concrete vision for the game instead? You seem to have strong opinions about what it should be. Tell us about your proposals:

- What mechanics do you envision for these characters with integrated skills and others stats?
- What effects could this have on the gameplay?
- How would these changes fit with the current system?

Specific examples, tangible ideas… that’s what could truly help improve the project. After all, it is more constructive to contribute to building something than to limit oneself to criticizing those who are building it.

 

[Ptah]

It would be really valuable to hear your concrete ideas, as repeating certain points without expanding further doesn’t fully showcase the potential of your observations.

Why not take this opportunity to share your concrete vision for the game instead? You seem to have strong opinions about what it should be. Tell us about your proposals:

- What mechanics do you envision for these characters with integrated skills and others stats?
- What effects could this have on the gameplay?
- How would these changes fit with the current system?

Specific examples, tangible ideas… that’s what could truly help improve the project. After all, it is more constructive to contribute to building something than to limit oneself to criticizing those who are building it.

I already did, in a previous post, you guys maybe need to read it again.

"What mechanics do you envision for these characters with integrated skills and others stats?"
- Traits or skills that characters may have: "Your next attack does double damage" "This character stays 1 more round after this fight" "The next attack against you does double damage" "Gain/Lose X life" "The opponent discards X cards at random" ETC, ETC, ETC.
ALSO, in your example you REMOVE defence stat and the finisher cards and add them as a permanent option, which is an APPALLING decision because you maintain the dumb item card type but remove the interesting finisher ones? Finisher cards can give you even MORE mechanics by enhancing the combos through SYNERGIES with the characters possible skills. Example "This character does double damage when finishing with Anal Creampie"... So you're basically SIMPLIFYING the game EVEN MORE which is actually the OPPOSITE of what it needs.

"What effects could this have on the gameplay?"
- Eliminating Item card type and adding skills/traits to the character cards solve TWO problems with ONE change; FIRST, you remove a card type which BLOATS the card pool and deck. SECOND; Gives VARIATION on the characters so there's NOT a clearly better card than others and opens the possibility for COMBOS, so a BETTER GAMEPLAY.

"How would these changes fit with the current system?"
- You don't want a CARD GAME in which the gameplay becomes REPETITIVE and TEDIOUS because there's only 2 or 3 best option cards and the rest is CHAFF. This is BAD DESIGN, in order to do so, YOU NEED, card variation, HENCE you need MORE STATS/TRAITS in the cards, NOT LESS.

I can give class to some people here on how to develop a card game, I have experience enough to do so. Definitively you guys DON'T gonna improve the gameplay by turning the card battles EVEN MORE simplistic, because people it's gonna watch the porn videos on some "pron" website instead of playing a BORING card system... So NO, as it is right now, the game doesn't need MORE simplification, on the contrary it needs more COMPLEXITY and NUANCE.

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

You’ve raised some interesting points, particularly about integrated skills and synergies with finishers.

That said, I think it would be better if the exchange remained a bit calmer and more constructive. We're here to discuss and move forward together, not to impose a particular vision. Just as a reminder, I’m simply interested in the project, just like you.

On the substance, what you’re proposing is worth exploring further. For exemple :

- How do you envision integrating skills or traits without unbalancing the current cards, considering their number (150)?

- What specific mechanics could encourage combos without making the game repetitive or overly complex?


Ultimately, everyone here wants to help improve the project. Thoughtful discussions and concrete ideas are what will drive things forward. If you further develop your suggestions, I’m sure they will have a real impact on the debate.

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

Now that this observation has been made, we can resume the discussion more calmly. That said, let me explain how my vision differs from yours.

First, I am not at all approaching this from an ATK/DEF perspective, simply because it doesn’t make sense for the atmosphere of the game. I see it more as a Pornstar competition. If you’ve read the file attached to my proposal, I’m sure you’ve understood this already.

Additionally, I’m aiming more for a gameplay dynamic where the goal is to “reach a score” before the opponent, symbolized by the Pleasure Gauge (the “heart” of the game).

You mentioned that I removed FINISHER cards, but that’s incorrect. The card still exists; it just now includes all four finisher types. Players must still have it in their deck to use it.

Why did I make this change? Because, in the current version of the game, FINISHER cards don’t have much utility beyond ending a round. They don’t directly influence the VIDEOS, which, for me, are the heart of the game. In their current form, they overlap with ACTION cards, which is why I reduced their number (and their place in the deck).

Why do people play this game? Most likely for the porn videos! At least, that’s what I imagine drives a large portion of the player base.

I can understand that you don’t like ITEM cards—they aren’t particularly exciting aside from their effects—and I agree that combining their effects with pornstar cards could be a good alternative to eliminate them.

The idea of creating synergies between cards is also central to what we’re aiming for in this kind of game, which is why my proposal includes synergies between character cards (via a star system) as well as synergies with ACTION cards and card EFFECTS.

However, I disagree with your suggestion to keep adding more and more stats and traits. A game with straightforward mechanics can often have more depth than one bloated with statistics that only give the illusion of complexity. Simple mechanics and simplicity are two very different things.

Lastly, regarding your final paragraph about giving lessons to others, I’ll choose to overlook it. Its sole purpose seems to be condescension. Keep in mind that you don’t know who people are or what they do in real life. So before adopting a lecturing tone, it’s important to remain humble.

 

[Ptah]

- How do you envision integrating skills or traits without unbalancing the current cards, considering their number (150)?

- What specific mechanics could encourage combos without making the game repetitive or overly complex?

- The number IS NOT 150 but 3 or 4, because the rest of character cards are obviously underpowered compared to those on the top, and the other 100 are just worst versions of the 50 root models. So no, you don't have 150 characters but 50 and only 3 or 4 are worth playing as the game it is right now. Flash news, as I said, the cards are ALREADY unbalanced, my proposal of adding skills to the cards is PRECISELY to balance all those low stat cards with the higher ones. So there's no risk of unbalance if the unbalance is already there.

- Pretty much like the previous answer, the game IS ALREADY repetitive and it's OVERLY simple, so much that is boring to play, which is the LAST thing you want from a card based game. NO ONE will waste their time in a game with the same complexity as a rock, paper, scissors just to watch some random porn videos...

 

[Ptah]

First, I am not at all approaching this from an ATK/DEF perspective, simply because it doesn’t make sense for the atmosphere of the game. I see it more as a Pornstar competition. If you’ve read the file attached to my proposal, I’m sure you’ve understood this already.

Additionally, I’m aiming more for a gameplay dynamic where the goal is to “reach a score” before the opponent, symbolized by the Pleasure Gauge (the “heart” of the game).

This is all okay, but this is the last thing that should be worked on the skeleton of a card game, you first work in the mechanics, THEN you work into the reasoning towards the "lore".

You mentioned that I removed FINISHER cards, but that’s incorrect. The card still exists; it just now includes all four finisher types. Players must still have it in their deck to use it.

Why did I make this change? Because, in the current version of the game, FINISHER cards don’t have much utility beyond ending a round. They don’t directly influence the VIDEOS, which, for me, are the heart of the game. In their current form, they overlap with ACTION cards, which is why I reduced their number (and their place in the deck).

Turning the 4 existing finisher cards into 1 is almost the same as deleting it, because you REMOVE the players job of building his deck, which, fyi, is one of the BIGGEST parts of the fun on a good card game, not just the gameplay. And YES, I know finisher cards, right now, do absolutely nothing, but them are a great mechanic to add more complexity to the card game through synergies, as I mention in the previous post, AND ALSO, more videos which is part of the reward. And NO, they don't "overlap" with the action cards because the finisher cards are actions YOU DON'T see in the action card videos. The wise choice of cards to clean out of the mechanic are the ITEM ones, which give absolutely nothing to the mechanics if the Characters have those effects already integrated and add 0 videos to the gameplay...

Why do people play this game? Most likely for the porn videos! At least, that’s what I imagine drives a large portion of the player base.

WRONG, if people just wanted to watch some random porn videos or animations they could go to one of the gazillion free websites that exist, so NO, people don't play porn games just because the porn in it, but because interesting mechanics or interesting storytelling, sometimes both, never just for the porn, it wouldn't make any sense. That's why in a porn game that you only offer some mechanics, you better make them interesting, or your project is pretty much dead.

The idea of creating synergies between cards is also central to what we’re aiming for in this kind of game, which is why my proposal includes synergies between character cards (via a star system) as well as synergies with ACTION cards and card EFFECTS.

And how those synergies are going to balance 50 different characters (at the moment), do they have enough permutations to make all 50 characters interesting to be played? Or its going to be just more of what it is right now, with the majority of characters being useless because their stats are lacking ?

However, I disagree with your suggestion to keep adding more and more stats and traits. A game with straightforward mechanics can often have more depth than one bloated with statistics that only give the illusion of complexity. Simple mechanics and simplicity are two very different things.

The idea of giving more stats/skills to the characters its for an issue of variables, which you MUST have in a card game unless you want it to have a huge pool of useless cards, this is NOT what you want when building a card game mechanics, because you're dooming it to fail. It's not making the game more complex just for the sake of complexity, but because YOU NEED to give value to all those other cards which are CLEARLY underpowered compared to others. No successful CCG has ever been on the "rock paper scissors" simplistically way of developing, they just don't have a chance to last. Which I would think is what the developer wants. Not to create a desktop, cookie-cutter, forgettable game.

Lastly, regarding your final paragraph about giving lessons to others, I’ll choose to overlook it. Its sole purpose seems to be condescension. Keep in mind that you don’t know who people are or what they do in real life. So before adopting a lecturing tone, it’s important to remain humble.

It's not condescension, but an honest explanation of my capabilities. When I read people who clearly has no experience on creating game mechanics, or at least, not related on the topic, and still they throw their opinions around like if they did, THAT is arrogance. And I don't need to know them personally, just by what they say I have enough. I don't go around discussing about a topic that I don't have a really solid clue about. I might be vehement, but never a delusional egocentric, it's important to know when you're talking beyond your knowledge...

 

[LanguidFox]

I think that it is good to challenge for a specific design rather than general principles. There are a lot of specific designs that would fulfil the criteria necessary to make this a good game, I would be happy with any one of dozens of possible solutions, so I previously refrained from putting forward a complete specific solution, but it's a good excercise so lets do it.

Design goals:

1) There need to be 50 characters that a player might meaningfully add to their deck
2) The finishers and actions should be distinct to the point that there is reason to include one over another
3) All cards should have a purpose, if a card would never be included in a deck it might as well not exist
4) There should not be a single obvious dominant deck that a player should build
5) The game should be as close as possible, mechanically, to its current version. We're improving this game not building a new one.

Character cards:

1) Character cards have attack/defence and the link symbol as they currently do
2) Character cards may have up to two "preference" icons. These relate to finishers and can be a preference for something (gold border) or against it (red border)
3) Character cards may have up to one ability, similar to the abilities on items, printed along the bottom of the card

Preference rules:

1) Any attack against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference against automatically succeeds regardless of attack/defence totals
2) Any attack made against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference for automatically fails regardless of attack/defence totals

Defence Rule Change:

1) When an attack is successfully defended the defender discards one card from play rather than all cards in play.

Character abilities:

Characters may have any one of the following ten abilities
1) Defender. If an attack fails against this character the attacker loses a heart
2) Flexible. After playing this card draw three cards and discard down to your hand size
3) Toys. If you play this card when your item slot is empty draw a random item card from your deck and play it
4) Climax. As above but "finisher"
5) Actor. As above but "action"
6) Kidnap. After playing this card discard one character from your opponents side
7) Denial. As above but "finisher"
8) Interrupt. As above but "action"
9) Hasty. If you end your turn able to attack then you immediately attack.
10) Negate. While this character is in play opposing characters abilities do not activate

Item abilities:

Item abilities are updated to
1) Your opponent loses their duo slot
2) +30 attack
3) +30 defence
4) Play 2 more cards, draw back up to a full hand afterwards
5) Your current character gains +10 attack & defence until the end of the game (including if they're discarded and reused)
6) Your opponent immediately attacks

Deckbuilding rules:

A minimum deck size is required depending on difficulty / progress through the story. Initially 10 cards, increasing to 40.
A deck must contain 2 common cards for each uncommon card
A deck must contain 2 uncommon cards for each rare card
Finishers and actions are all considered common for deckbuilding purposes

Character distribution:

1) To create a character for the game they start with initial stats of 50-50, 40-60 or 60-40
2) If they have the "link" ability they lose 30 points of stats
3) They have 0-2 preferences that can be negative or positive
4) For each positive preference they lose 10 points of stats
5) For each negative preference they gain 10 points of stats
6) They can have an ability, if they do they lose 20 points of stats
7) An uncommon version of a character gains 10 to each stat
8) A rare version of a character gains an additional 10 to one stat

Rationale:

The game is still basically the same game and plays in broadly the same way. The player doesn't have to learn many new rules (Just the preference one).

Attacking a strong opponent to clear their board being dominant is addressed by making a weak attack remove less than the entire board and offering the possibility for a player to specialise in defence and deal damage that way through abilities.

The game is less predictable in taking 3 turns to build up and make an attack through multiple abilities that permit double moves.

The finishers and actions are now relevant and cannot be played interchangeably, but importantly their utility depends upon the strengths/weaknesses of the model in the opposing deck. This is desirable because if they depended on your deck it would often be best to specialise in one type which would make "see a wide variety of porn animations" and "make a good deck" competing goals, which seems undesirable.

Items are now all relevant rather than having many items which provide bonuses too small to be relevant to the differences between the models.

It possible to have 3 x 2 x 6 x 10 = 360 different characters before a combination of stats-link-ability-preferences would need to be repeated. This is more than enough for the current scope of the game.

Some combinations may turn out to be stronger or weaker (e.g. the defender trait will be more valuable on a low attack high defence character than the other way around) and need adjustments to be balanced. This gives a starting point.

There is a reason to care about models below the rare difficulty and meaningful decisions to be made about which models to make use of and which ones you really need/want the rare versions of. The rare advantage is reduced in size so that lower level cards may still win with the right ability/item use.

 

[Ptah]

I think that it is good to challenge for a specific design rather than general principles. There are a lot of specific designs that would fulfil the criteria necessary to make this a good game, I would be happy with any one of dozens of possible solutions, so I previously refrained from putting forward a complete specific solution, but it's a good excercise so lets do it.

Design goals:

1) There need to be 50 characters that a player might meaningfully add to their deck
2) The finishers and actions should be distinct to the point that there is reason to include one over another
3) All cards should have a purpose, if a card would never be included in a deck it might as well not exist
4) There should not be a single obvious dominant deck that a player should build
5) The game should be as close as possible, mechanically, to its current version. We're improving this game not building a new one.

Character cards:

1) Character cards have attack/defence and the link symbol as they currently do
2) Character cards may have up to two "preference" icons. These relate to finishers and can be a preference for something (gold border) or against it (red border)
3) Character cards may have up to one ability, similar to the abilities on items, printed along the bottom of the card

Preference rules:

1) Any attack against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference against automatically succeeds regardless of attack/defence totals
2) Any attack made against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference for automatically fails regardless of attack/defence totals

Defence Rule Change:

1) When an attack is successfully defended the defender discards one card from play rather than all cards in play.

Character abilities:

Characters may have any one of the following ten abilities
1) Defender. If an attack fails against this character the attacker loses a heart
2) Flexible. After playing this card draw three cards and discard down to your hand size
3) Toys. If you play this card when your item slot is empty draw a random item card from your deck and play it
4) Climax. As above but "finisher"
5) Actor. As above but "action"
6) Kidnap. After playing this card discard one character from your opponents side
7) Denial. As above but "finisher"
8) Interrupt. As above but "action"
9) Hasty. If you end your turn able to attack then you immediately attack.
10) Negate. While this character is in play opposing characters abilities do not activate

Item abilities:

Item abilities are updated to
1) Your opponent loses their duo slot
2) +30 attack
3) +30 defence
4) Play 2 more cards, draw back up to a full hand afterwards
5) Your current character gains +10 attack & defence until the end of the game (including if they're discarded and reused)
6) Your opponent immediately attacks

Deckbuilding rules:

A minimum deck size is required depending on difficulty / progress through the story. Initially 10 cards, increasing to 40.
A deck must contain 2 common cards for each uncommon card
A deck must contain 2 uncommon cards for each rare card
Finishers and actions are all considered common for deckbuilding purposes

Character distribution:

1) To create a character for the game they start with initial stats of 50-50, 40-60 or 60-40
2) If they have the "link" ability they lose 30 points of stats
3) They have 0-2 preferences that can be negative or positive
4) For each positive preference they lose 10 points of stats
5) For each negative preference they gain 10 points of stats
6) They can have an ability, if they do they lose 20 points of stats
7) An uncommon version of a character gains 10 to each stat
8) A rare version of a character gains an additional 10 to one stat

Rationale:

The game is still basically the same game and plays in broadly the same way. The player doesn't have to learn many new rules (Just the preference one).

Attacking a strong opponent to clear their board being dominant is addressed by making a weak attack remove less than the entire board and offering the possibility for a player to specialise in defence and deal damage that way through abilities.

The game is less predictable in taking 3 turns to build up and make an attack through multiple abilities that permit double moves.

The finishers and actions are now relevant and cannot be played interchangeably, but importantly their utility depends upon the strengths/weaknesses of the model in the opposing deck. This is desirable because if they depended on your deck it would often be best to specialise in one type which would make "see a wide variety of porn animations" and "make a good deck" competing goals, which seems undesirable.

Items are now all relevant rather than having many items which provide bonuses too small to be relevant to the differences between the models.

It possible to have 3 x 2 x 6 x 10 = 360 different characters before a combination of stats-link-ability-preferences would need to be repeated. This is more than enough for the current scope of the game.

Some combinations may turn out to be stronger or weaker (e.g. the defender trait will be more valuable on a low attack high defence character than the other way around) and need adjustments to be balanced. This gives a starting point.

There is a reason to care about models below the rare difficulty and meaningful decisions to be made about which models to make use of and which ones you really need/want the rare versions of. The rare advantage is reduced in size so that lower level cards may still win with the right ability/item use.

I agree, on some things, but for what I've read you're using the logic, "because the card is rarer it is simply more powerful", that is BAD card game design. All successful games follow this pattern on rarities:
-Lowest (common) : Useful cards.
-Mid (uncommon) : Useful cards a BIT more powerful but "niched".
-High (rare/epic) : Powerful card but their effects are context dependant.
-Maximum (legendary/mythic) : Game changing card but totally niche use.

^---- This way all cards should be playable and don't generate the "this card sucks - this card wins everything" syndrome... In this game case, I would just eliminate rarities and character weak versions, if you want 150 chars then create 150 DIFFERENT ones...

 

[LanguidFox]

I agree, on some things, but for what I've read you're using the logic, "because the card is rarer it is simply more powerful", that is BAD card game design. All successful games follow this pattern on rarities:
-Lowest (common) : Useful cards.
-Mid (uncommon) : Useful cards a BIT more powerful but "niched".
-High (rare/epic) : Powerful card but their effects are context dependant.
-Maximum (legendary/mythic) : Game changing card but totally niche use.

^---- This way all cards should be playable and don't generate the "this card sucks - this card wins everything" syndrome... In this game case, I would just eliminate rarities and character weak versions, if you want 150 chars then create 150 DIFFERENT ones...

I'm actually in broad agreement with you that it's worse design for rare cards to be better versions of common cards and that in an ideal game you will have exactly the sort of trade offs you describe.

However that's also much more complex to design. Remember that the dev isn't an experienced card game designer or player. Getting that asymmetry with niche cards right is a surprisingly hard trick to pull off.

So I looked for something simpler that achieved the same goal.

What I was looking to avoid is having cards implemented in game that serve no purpose because they'd never be included in a player's deck. Making rarer cards both better when played and also more restricted by deckbuilding means that they present a trade off and there's still reason to use the common version if you have the rare.

It creates a meaningful choice between "Do I want the rare version of the character with +20 attack but it'll count as one of the four rares I can fit into my deck or is an uncommon +10 good enough because it's more important to me to have higher numbers on a card with a particular ability I'm interested in"

 

[Ptah]

I'm actually in broad agreement with you that it's worse design for rare cards to be better versions of common cards and that in an ideal game you will have exactly the sort of trade offs you describe.

However that's also much more complex to design. Remember that the dev isn't an experienced card game designer or player. Getting that asymmetry with niche cards right is a surprisingly hard trick to pull off.

So I looked for something simpler that achieved the same goal.

What I was looking to avoid is having cards implemented in game that serve no purpose because they'd never be included in a player's deck. Making rarer cards both better when played and also more restricted by deckbuilding means that they present a trade off and there's still reason to use the common version if you have the rare.

It creates a meaningful choice between "Do I want the rare version of the character with +20 attack but it'll count as one of the four rares I can fit into my deck or is an uncommon +10 good enough because it's more important to me to have higher numbers on a card with a particular ability I'm interested in"

That whole dilemma disappears if you just eliminate the characters rarity so you don't FORCE the players to use the crappy versions. Also, as I said before, why the fuck create 3 versions of a same char instead of creating 150 different characters? Like there wasn't enough pornstars to choose? I'm sorry, but having different card rarities of the same card only works on games which allow you to craft them into the rarer version, and it is not the case here, so basically it's a bad game design decision.

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

- The number IS NOT 150 but 3 or 4, because the rest of character cards are obviously underpowered compared to those on the top, and the other 100 are just worst versions of the 50 root models. So no, you don't have 150 characters but 50 and only 3 or 4 are worth playing as the game it is right now. Flash news, as I said, the cards are ALREADY unbalanced, my proposal of adding skills to the cards is PRECISELY to balance all those low stat cards with the higher ones. So there's no risk of unbalance if the unbalance is already there.

- Pretty much like the previous answer, the game IS ALREADY repetitive and it's OVERLY simple, so much that is boring to play, which is the LAST thing you want from a card based game. NO ONE will waste their time in a game with the same complexity as a rock, paper, scissors just to watch some random porn videos...

I appreciate the time you’ve taken to explain your perspective. However, I’ve noticed that much of your feedback highlights the current issues with the game—such as "unbalanced cards" and "repetitive mechanics"—without delving into concrete solutions or directly addressing my questions. To keep the discussion productive, let’s take a step back and clarify the core structure of the game:

- There are 50 character cards, each with 3 variations, resulting in a total of 150 cards.
- We also have 4 types of Action cards and 4 types of Finisher cards (I’ll set aside Item cards for now, as we seem to agree on their redundancy).

With these mechanics in mind, my questions were intended to explore how your ideas could be integrated into this framework. Let me explain further:

-You mentioned that the game is already unbalanced, with only 3 or 4 cards being viable. However, addressing balance isn’t just about closing the power gap—it’s also about creating variety and strategic depth for players. Stating that the game is unbalanced doesn’t clarify how you would distribute skills across the 150 cards (or 50 base cards, if we agree to treat them as such).

Could you provide more detail on what these skills might look like? For example, would they be passive traits, activated abilities, or stat modifiers? Concrete examples would be helpful, as LanguidFox demonstrated earlier in the discussion."

"This is all okay, but this is the last thing that should be worked on the skeleton of a card game, you first work in the mechanics, THEN you work into the reasoning towards the "lore".

I completely agree that mechanics are the backbone of any game. However, I firmly believe that mechanics and lore should complement and enhance one another to create a truly engaging experience. In fact, starting with a vision of how the lore intertwines with the mechanics can be a powerful approach to building a cohesive game.

"Turning the 4 existing finisher cards into 1 is almost the same as deleting it, because you REMOVE the players job of building his deck, which, fyi, is one of the BIGGEST parts of the fun on a good card game, not just the gameplay. And YES, I know finisher cards, right now, do absolutely nothing, but them are a great mechanic to add more complexity to the card game through synergies, as I mention in the previous post, AND ALSO, more videos which is part of the reward. And NO, they don't "overlap" with the action cards because the finisher cards are actions YOU DON'T see in the action card videos. The wise choice of cards to clean out of the mechanic are the ITEM ones, which give absolutely nothing to the mechanics if the Characters have those effects already integrated and add 0 videos to the gameplay..."

What ideas do you have for making the finisher cards more dynamic and interesting to play? From my side, I wonder if transforming them into action cards could be a good direction. If you think that’s not the best approach, what do you see as the key differences between finisher cards and action cards, beyond their names? How could we distinguish them mechanically or strategically, so they retain their unique role in the game?

WRONG, if people just wanted to watch some random porn videos or animations they could go to one of the gazillion free websites that exist, so NO, people don't play porn games just because the porn in it, but because interesting mechanics or interesting storytelling, sometimes both, never just for the porn, it wouldn't make any sense. That's why in a porn game that you only offer some mechanics, you better make them interesting, or your project is pretty much dead.

The true driving force of the game remains the cards, and especially the videos to collect. At least, that's how the game seems to be structured right now, with videos as the central element that motivates players. That said, I understand your point of view, and I agree with what you're saying.

And how those synergies are going to balance 50 different characters (at the moment), do they have enough permutations to make all 50 characters interesting to be played? Or its going to be just more of what it is right now, with the majority of characters being useless because their stats are lacking ?

The star system ensures that all cards retain value, as stronger cards depend on weaker ones to be played. This creates a chain of utility where no card is entirely useless. Additionally, by adding unique effects or traits to each character card, we can introduce layers of strategy that make even low-stat cards viable in certain scenarios. For example, a low-stat card could have a disruptive ability, like negating an opponent’s action. This approach offers hundreds of potential combinations while keeping the mechanics intuitive. I'm not saying it's the perfect solution, but I think it could be an interesting approach.

The idea of giving more stats/skills to the characters its for an issue of variables, which you MUST have in a card game unless you want it to have a huge pool of useless cards, this is NOT what you want when building a card game mechanics, because you're dooming it to fail. It's not making the game more complex just for the sake of complexity, but because YOU NEED to give value to all those other cards which are CLEARLY underpowered compared to others. No successful CCG has ever been on the "rock paper scissors" simplistically way of developing, they just don't have a chance to last. Which I would think is what the developer wants. Not to create a desktop, cookie-cutter, forgettable game.

I see your point, but I lean more towards a streamlined design like, example : "UNO", focusing on quick, accessible fun with strategic depth, rather than the complexity of games like, example : "Yu-Gi-Oh". Both can offer strategy, but for this project’s resources and audience, simplicity with engaging mechanics seems more sustainable. A star system combined with unique character abilities could strike that balance. It’d be interesting to hear LewdMonkey’s perspective on this, especially considering the development possibilities on their end.

It's not condescension, but an honest explanation of my capabilities. When I read people who clearly has no experience on creating game mechanics, or at least, not related on the topic, and still they throw their opinions around like if they did, THAT is arrogance. And I don't need to know them personally, just by what they say I have enough. I don't go around discussing about a topic that I don't have a really solid clue about. I might be vehement, but never a delusional egocentric, it's important to know when you're talking beyond your knowledge...

I appreciate your clarification and your expertise in the field. My intention isn’t to undermine your knowledge but to contribute to the discussion based on the game’s current framework and the goals we seem to share. Our differing perspectives might actually complement each other in finding the best solutions for this project.

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

I'm actually in broad agreement with you that it's worse design for rare cards to be better versions of common cards and that in an ideal game you will have exactly the sort of trade offs you describe.

However that's also much more complex to design. Remember that the dev isn't an experienced card game designer or player. Getting that asymmetry with niche cards right is a surprisingly hard trick to pull off.

So I looked for something simpler that achieved the same goal.

What I was looking to avoid is having cards implemented in game that serve no purpose because they'd never be included in a player's deck. Making rarer cards both better when played and also more restricted by deckbuilding means that they present a trade off and there's still reason to use the common version if you have the rare.

It creates a meaningful choice between "Do I want the rare version of the character with +20 attack but it'll count as one of the four rares I can fit into my deck or is an uncommon +10 good enough because it's more important to me to have higher numbers on a card with a particular ability I'm interested in"

It's really rewarding to have these in-depth exchanges to refine and improve the game. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting adding effects and abilities to character cards, similar to those of items. And you're using finisher cards as "penalties" against the opposing player?

Design goals:

1) There need to be 50 characters that a player might meaningfully add to their deck

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you talking about the number of characters available in the starting pool when creating the deck? Or are you referring to the total number of character cards?

2) The finishers and actions should be distinct to the point that there is reason to include one over another

That's indeed a good point, how do you see it?

3) All cards should have a purpose, if a card would never be included in a deck it might as well not exist

Indeed, it's something that should be achieved as much as possible.

5) The game should be as close as possible, mechanically, to its current version. We're improving this game not building a new one.

Why this constraint? Proposing alternative mechanics could actually be a good idea. Why limit ourselves to this approach?

Preference rules:

1) Any attack against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference against automatically succeeds regardless of attack/defence totals

Aren't we at risk of limiting ourselves to using preferences at the expense of attack/defense stats? In the end, we’re transforming one value (ATK/DEF) into another. It’s an interesting alternative, but in my opinion, the stats should complement each other rather than cancel out. Cancellation should rather be an effect specific to certain cards.

In what you're suggesting, we end up with five parameters: ATK/DEF, preference (Golden/Red), and effect. That seems a bit too much for each card. In my opinion, it would be better to combine ATK/DEF with preference. For example:

Golden Preference = ATK Value 1
Red Preference = ATK Value 2
This would simplify things while maintaining an interesting strategy.

1) Any attack against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference against automatically succeeds regardless of attack/defence totals.

2) Any attack made against a character using an ability/finisher that they have a preference for automatically fails regardless of attack/defence totals

I see a problem with the proposed rules:

The first rule states that an attack with a finisher matching the character's preference automatically succeeds, regardless of attack/defense. The second rule states that an attack automatically fails if the finisher used does not match the preference.

The issue is that if both characters (AI and opponent) use a similar finisher (meaning the same preference), the attack will automatically succeed according to the first rule. But if the opponent uses a non-preferred finisher, it automatically fails according to the second rule.

Character abilities:

Characters may have any one of the following ten abilities
1) Defender. If an attack fails against this character the attacker loses a heart
2) Flexible. After playing this card draw three cards and discard down to your hand size
3) Toys. If you play this card when your item slot is empty draw a random item card from your deck and play it
4) Climax. As above but "finisher"
5) Actor. As above but "action"
6) Kidnap. After playing this card discard one character from your opponents side
7) Denial. As above but "finisher"
8) Interrupt. As above but "action"
9) Hasty. If you end your turn able to attack then you immediately attack.
10) Negate. While this character is in play opposing characters abilities do not activate

Thank you for proposing concrete ideas for the abilities, it's always enriching to come up with new ideas.

3) Toys. If you play this card when your item slot is empty draw a random item card from your deck and play it

The rule doesn't seem very suitable because if I choose randomly, I don't know what I'm going to get. Also, if you keep the current board, there is only one item slot. What happens if the slots are already occupied? Does it change the item on the field?

Item abilities:

Item abilities are updated to
1) Your opponent loses their duo slot
2) +30 attack
3) +30 defence
4) Play 2 more cards, draw back up to a full hand afterwards
5) Your current character gains +10 attack & defence until the end of the game (including if they're discarded and reused)
6) Your opponent immediately attacks

The proposed item abilities are interesting, but some seem unbalanced. For example, ability number 5, in relation to the ability that grants +30 to attack or defense. This could make the game too focused on attack at the expense of defense, unless the ATK bonus is reduced to +20.

Deckbuilding rules:

A minimum deck size is required depending on difficulty / progress through the story. Initially 10 cards, increasing to 40.
A deck must contain 2 common cards for each uncommon card
A deck must contain 2 uncommon cards for each rare card
Finishers and actions are all considered common for deckbuilding purposes.

It is essential to have a minimum required number of cards, maybe 20 or 30, because currently, the lack of card limits and costs makes the game easily breakable.

In your example, if Finishers and actions are considered common, doesn't that risk removing common actress cards and ensuring that only rare and epic actress cards are used?

Rationale:

Attacking a strong opponent to clear their board being dominant is addressed by making a weak attack remove less than the entire board and offering the possibility for a player to specialise in defence and deal damage that way through abilities.

I don't understand what you mean by "empty the board." Are you referring to the fact that, instead of replacing everything, part of your board is kept for the next round?

The finishers and actions are now relevant and cannot be played interchangeably, but importantly their utility depends upon the strengths/weaknesses of the model in the opposing deck. This is desirable because if they depended on your deck it would often be best to specialise in one type which would make "see a wide variety of porn animations" and "make a good deck" competing goals, which seems undesirable.

That seems a bit unusual. In reality, it comes down to the same thing, because by knowing the opponent's card, you can simply place an unfavorable finisher on your board to penalize them.


You haven't mentioned the action cards? What is their change in this "revision" ?

 

[LewdMonkey1]

Hey guys, I'm sorry I could not come back sooner. Got a baby due between now and a couple of weeks, it's been crazy!

I started reading many replies and saw a lot of in-depth suggestions for the game. I would like to thank everyone for their interest in the game!

As of now, I started working on a new version and only has some bugs left to resolve before release. Here is the changelog so far, but keep in mind that this was before I saw any posts here since last weekend :

GAMEPLAY & MECHANICS

Added abilities to cards:
19 unique abilities have been added to Pornstar cards. These abilities trigger depending on the Action, Finisher, or Item card played.

- Finisher cards are only required for Duos:
Solo Pornstars no longer require Finisher cards to perform attacks. However, playing a Finisher card still grants the bonus of any associated ability. For Duos, Finisher cards remain mandatory to execute an attack.

- Deck size adjustments:
The minimum deck size is now 30 cards, with the maximum remaining at 40.

- Reduced bonus from linked cards:
The bonus from linked cards has been reduced from 100% of the Duo card's value to 30%.

- Card stat adjustments:
Card stats have been significantly reduced across the board.

- Reduced card sell value:
Money gained from selling a card has been reduced by 50%.

NEW CONTENT

- New card pack available:
A new card pack is now available, containing only Item, Action, and Finisher cards.

QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS

- Improved hand display:
The card being hovered over now displays in front of the others for better visibility.

- Faster attack animations:
Attack result animations have been sped up to improve pacing.

- Automatic starter deck creation:
The starter pack now automatically creates a deck upon acquisition.

- Simplified card drawing:
The "Draw" button has been removed. Cards are now automatically added to your hand.

BUG FIXES

- Fixed unplayable card issue:
Resolved an issue where a card returned to the hand but remained unplayable after certain events.

- Story dialogue fixes:
Fixed a bug in a part of the story dialogue.

- Linked Pornstar card restriction:
The same Pornstar can no longer be linked with itself.

I don't know exactly when I'll be able to put it out there but I'm going to try my best for the week to come.

Cheers!

 

[LanguidFox]

(On 50 characters) "I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you talking about the number of characters available in the starting pool when creating the deck? Or are you referring to the total number of character cards?"

The point I was aiming to make is that the dev has gone to the trouble to source animations for a lot of characters, so it'd be good for the game to contain that many characters.

However presently most of them might as well not be in the game, since from a mechanical standpoint there are only 2-3 characters worth using. All other characters are strictly worse than these and should be replaced by them whenever available.

So I was stating as an explicit design goal a need to have game mechanics that support a wide variety of playable models.

(On close to existing game) "Why this constraint? Proposing alternative mechanics could actually be a good idea. Why limit ourselves to this approach?"

The value of keeping suggestions as close as possible to an existing game is that it ensures that they're about improving the game at hand rather than imagining a new one (possibly with some similarities). Discussing how a different game might be made is interesting but this is the wrong place to do it. I wanted to be clear that my discussion was focused on looking for ways to improve and develop this game rather than suggesting ways to delete it and make something else.

(On preference rules) "Aren't we at risk of limiting ourselves to using preferences at the expense of attack/defense stats? In the end, we’re transforming one value (ATK/DEF) into another. It’s an interesting alternative, but in my opinion, the stats should complement each other rather than cancel out. Cancellation should rather be an effect specific to certain cards.

In what you're suggesting, we end up with five parameters: ATK/DEF, preference (Golden/Red), and effect. That seems a bit too much for each card. In my opinion, it would be better to combine ATK/DEF with preference. For example:

Golden Preference = ATK Value 1
Red Preference = ATK Value 2
This would simplify things while maintaining an interesting strategy."

No, the goal isn't to have preferences replace attack/defence stats. They simply trump them in some situations.

Think of it like "deathtouch" in Magic. If you've not played it's an abilities that some cards have that cause them to kill their target if they deliver a single point of damage. This makes the attack and toughness of those cards largely irrelevant (because they're usually compared to see if one creature can kill another) when deathtouch is involved. However it genuinely makes the game richer and its existence in the game does not make attack and toughness stats meaningless, they're very much still important.

The goal with the proposed rule was to create another dimension on which characters can be different to each other. Remember that one design goal is to allow many different models that are good in different situations. A model with better stats but that is vulnerable to multiple instant death conditions is meaningfully different to one that's got poorer stats but is entirely immune to some attacks.

(On preference rule specifically) "I see a problem with the proposed rules:

The first rule states that an attack with a finisher matching the character's preference automatically succeeds, regardless of attack/defense. The second rule states that an attack automatically fails if the finisher used does not match the preference.

The issue is that if both characters (AI and opponent) use a similar finisher (meaning the same preference), the attack will automatically succeed according to the first rule. But if the opponent uses a non-preferred finisher, it automatically fails according to the second rule."

You have misread the second proposed rule. It does not state that an attack automatically fails if the finisher does not match the models preference. It states that the attack automatically fails if it matches the targets positive preference.

Essentially an attack using a method the opposing model hates always works and one using a method they like always fails.

The rules cannot come into competition because a model won't like and hate the same thing. They also don't make ATK/DEF irrelevant since not every model will have any preferences and even if the opponent does there's no guarantee you'll have the appropriate action to hand.

(On proposed abilities 3-5) "The rule doesn't seem very suitable because if I choose randomly, I don't know what I'm going to get. Also, if you keep the current board, there is only one item slot. What happens if the slots are already occupied? Does it change the item on the field?"

The rule states "If you play this card when your item slot is empty..." So if the item slot is already occupied the ability does not apply.

Also note the difference between "random" and "random from your deck". A player could include only one sort of item to ensure the outcome desired from such a card, at the expense of flexibility, more likely they'd pick a limited pool of 2-3 aiming to always get something that fits well with their other choices.

I would be worse to get an item entirely at random from the item pool. Though there's no real reason that couldn't be an ability too, it's clearly less useful so a model with it could have slightly higher stats and there's a meaningful choice between models (which again is the goal of a lot of the proposals here)

(On item abilities) "The proposed item abilities are interesting, but some seem unbalanced. For example, ability number 5, in relation to the ability that grants +30 to attack or defense. This could make the game too focused on attack at the expense of defense, unless the ATK bonus is reduced to +20."

The difference between the +30 item and the +10 item is that the +30 item applies to this fight where the +10 item applies to every fight that model is used in for the rest of the match. If a player is cycling their deck quickly (for example with models that draw more cards) they could theoretically use such an item to upgrade a particular model several times and make it very powerful. Again, aimed at offering different ways to play. The +10 item does offer worse stats, it's intentionally weaker because it offers a longer term advantage.

Certainly the numbers may be off and playtesting may show that it's good to increase or decrease some, but it's not as simple as the proposed item with the higher numbers is always better.

(On deckbuilding) "It is essential to have a minimum required number of cards, maybe 20 or 30, because currently, the lack of card limits and costs makes the game easily breakable.

In your example, if Finishers and actions are considered common, doesn't that risk removing common actress cards and ensuring that only rare and epic actress cards are used?"

You make a good point. I wanted to make sure finishers were accessible but it could easily lead to a lot of card pool being excluded. It would be better to allow whatever finishers and items the player wants and apply the suggested rarity rule only to models.

(On rationale for board rule) "I don't understand what you mean by "empty the board." Are you referring to the fact that, instead of replacing everything, part of your board is kept for the next round?"

I was referring to the current behaviour of the game in which all cards are removed from the board following an unsuccessful attack.

The point I was aiming to make was that the proposal of having an unsuccessful attack only remove one card from the defenders side was aimed at making defence more meaningful.

(On finishers/actions/preferences rationale) "That seems a bit unusual. In reality, it comes down to the same thing, because by knowing the opponent's card, you can simply place an unfavorable finisher on your board to penalize them."

It's to do with deckbuilding.

If finishers & actions get a bonus based on your own model then you can build a deck to specialise around them. For example a deck that uses only the "blowjob" action and models that get bonuses for using the blowjob action.

The result is an effective deck in game, but the mechanics of the game are pushing the player away from seeing more porn (which is undesirable) because they'll only ever see one sort of action in game. Also models gaining a bonus for a particular sort of action may find their videos for other actions never get watched.

Conversely if you would like the correct action to defeat an opposing model then during deckbuilding it makes more sense to include some actions of each type. That increases the odds you'll have access to the action necessary to exploit an opponents weakness (or have enough flexibility to find an action that gets around a strength).

The result is that an effective deck is one that contains a mix of actions and there's no reason to associate a particular action with a particular model on your side, making it more likely you'll see more combinations of actions and models in optimal play (seeing a greater proportion of the videos)

(On action cards) "You haven't mentioned the action cards? What is their change in this "revision" ?"

The action cards were unchanged in my proposal.

They indirectly changed by virtue of the preference rule that could apply to actions or finishers. The existence of models immune to a particular action or who are automatically defeated by one inherently makes those cards have different effects despite being the same on paper.

 

[LanguidFox]

Hey guys, I'm sorry I could not come back sooner. Got a baby due between now and a couple of weeks, it's been crazy!

I started reading many replies and saw a lot of in-depth suggestions for the game. I would like to thank everyone for their interest in the game!

As of now, I started working on a new version and only has some bugs left to resolve before release. Here is the changelog so far, but keep in mind that this was before I saw any posts here since last weekend :



I don't know exactly when I'll be able to put it out there but I'm going to try my best for the week to come.

Cheers!

Sounds like some good steps in the right direction

I think making a successful defence more rewarding is going to be an important step soon. If it takes 3 turns to do a regular attack and 5 turns to do a duo attack it could be that duos will simply not be useful because the opponent can do an attack to knock it off the board before it's finished.

 

[Ptah]

I appreciate the time you’ve taken to explain your perspective. However, I’ve noticed that much of your feedback highlights the current issues with the game—such as "unbalanced cards" and "repetitive mechanics"—without delving into concrete solutions or directly addressing my questions. To keep the discussion productive, let’s take a step back and clarify the core structure of the game:

- There are 50 character cards, each with 3 variations, resulting in a total of 150 cards.
- We also have 4 types of Action cards and 4 types of Finisher cards (I’ll set aside Item cards for now, as we seem to agree on their redundancy).

With these mechanics in mind, my questions were intended to explore how your ideas could be integrated into this framework. Let me explain further:

-You mentioned that the game is already unbalanced, with only 3 or 4 cards being viable. However, addressing balance isn’t just about closing the power gap—it’s also about creating variety and strategic depth for players. Stating that the game is unbalanced doesn’t clarify how you would distribute skills across the 150 cards (or 50 base cards, if we agree to treat them as such).

Could you provide more detail on what these skills might look like? For example, would they be passive traits, activated abilities, or stat modifiers? Concrete examples would be helpful, as LanguidFox demonstrated earlier in the discussion."

I've already explained the type of stats I would add to the character cards, I'll repeat again... " - Traits or skills that characters may have: "Your next attack does double damage" "This character stays 1 more round after this fight" "The next attack against you does double damage" "Gain/Lose X life" "The opponent discards X cards at random" ETC, ETC, ETC. " <-- As you can see I added positive and negative stats, and no one of them are activated skills but effects that happen as the card is played, pretty much like the item cards do right now.

What ideas do you have for making the finisher cards more dynamic and interesting to play? From my side, I wonder if transforming them into action cards could be a good direction. If you think that’s not the best approach, what do you see as the key differences between finisher cards and action cards, beyond their names? How could we distinguish them mechanically or strategically, so they retain their unique role in the game?

I wouldn't change nothing on how Action or Finisher cards work in the gameplay right now, except adding videos to the finisher cards (IF you win the attack, so they would play at the end of the round, not as they're played, like Action cards do). The interaction with Action and Finisher cards would come from Characters skills, for example a character having "If your Action/Finisher card is X you gain/lose Y"

The true driving force of the game remains the cards, and especially the videos to collect. At least, that's how the game seems to be structured right now, with videos as the central element that motivates players. That said, I understand your point of view, and I agree with what you're saying.

The videos are just the cherry on the top or the "reward", but that being said, because the reward are simply porn video cuts, the gameplay better be rich and engaging, because if not people would just go and watch them to a porn website.

The star system ensures that all cards retain value, as stronger cards depend on weaker ones to be played. This creates a chain of utility where no card is entirely useless. Additionally, by adding unique effects or traits to each character card, we can introduce layers of strategy that make even low-stat cards viable in certain scenarios. For example, a low-stat card could have a disruptive ability, like negating an opponent’s action. This approach offers hundreds of potential combinations while keeping the mechanics intuitive. I'm not saying it's the perfect solution, but I think it could be an interesting approach.

View attachment 4458028

Sincerely, I see no point at all on the 3 variations of the same character, just bloats the pool of cards and you keep unlocking the same videos with them and doesn't add much to the gameplay. This effort would be spent A LOT better into creating new models. As I said before, we're talking about pornstars, there's GAZILLIONS of them...

I see your point, but I lean more towards a streamlined design like, example : "UNO", focusing on quick, accessible fun with strategic depth, rather than the complexity of games like, example : "Yu-Gi-Oh". Both can offer strategy, but for this project’s resources and audience, simplicity with engaging mechanics seems more sustainable. A star system combined with unique character abilities could strike that balance. It’d be interesting to hear LewdMonkey’s perspective on this, especially considering the development possibilities on their end.

I understand what do you say, but a "UNO" type of gameplay wouldn't work for a game that wants to get updates, I'm assuming that the DEV doesn't want to create this as a one-shot type of game, but a game that has growth possibilities. A "UNO" level of mechanics would just alienate the people in no time and lose interest...

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

(On 50 characters) "I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you talking about the number of characters available in the starting pool when creating the deck? Or are you referring to the total number of character cards?"

The point I was aiming to make is that the dev has gone to the trouble to source animations for a lot of characters, so it'd be good for the game to contain that many characters.

However presently most of them might as well not be in the game, since from a mechanical standpoint there are only 2-3 characters worth using. All other characters are strictly worse than these and should be replaced by them whenever available.

So I was stating as an explicit design goal a need to have game mechanics that support a wide variety of playable models.

(On close to existing game) "Why this constraint? Proposing alternative mechanics could actually be a good idea. Why limit ourselves to this approach?"

The value of keeping suggestions as close as possible to an existing game is that it ensures that they're about improving the game at hand rather than imagining a new one (possibly with some similarities). Discussing how a different game might be made is interesting but this is the wrong place to do it. I wanted to be clear that my discussion was focused on looking for ways to improve and develop this game rather than suggesting ways to delete it and make something else.

(On preference rules) "Aren't we at risk of limiting ourselves to using preferences at the expense of attack/defense stats? In the end, we’re transforming one value (ATK/DEF) into another. It’s an interesting alternative, but in my opinion, the stats should complement each other rather than cancel out. Cancellation should rather be an effect specific to certain cards.

In what you're suggesting, we end up with five parameters: ATK/DEF, preference (Golden/Red), and effect. That seems a bit too much for each card. In my opinion, it would be better to combine ATK/DEF with preference. For example:

Golden Preference = ATK Value 1
Red Preference = ATK Value 2
This would simplify things while maintaining an interesting strategy."

No, the goal isn't to have preferences replace attack/defence stats. They simply trump them in some situations.

Think of it like "deathtouch" in Magic. If you've not played it's an abilities that some cards have that cause them to kill their target if they deliver a single point of damage. This makes the attack and toughness of those cards largely irrelevant (because they're usually compared to see if one creature can kill another) when deathtouch is involved. However it genuinely makes the game richer and its existence in the game does not make attack and toughness stats meaningless, they're very much still important.

The goal with the proposed rule was to create another dimension on which characters can be different to each other. Remember that one design goal is to allow many different models that are good in different situations. A model with better stats but that is vulnerable to multiple instant death conditions is meaningfully different to one that's got poorer stats but is entirely immune to some attacks.

(On preference rule specifically) "I see a problem with the proposed rules:

The first rule states that an attack with a finisher matching the character's preference automatically succeeds, regardless of attack/defense. The second rule states that an attack automatically fails if the finisher used does not match the preference.

The issue is that if both characters (AI and opponent) use a similar finisher (meaning the same preference), the attack will automatically succeed according to the first rule. But if the opponent uses a non-preferred finisher, it automatically fails according to the second rule."

You have misread the second proposed rule. It does not state that an attack automatically fails if the finisher does not match the models preference. It states that the attack automatically fails if it matches the targets positive preference.

Essentially an attack using a method the opposing model hates always works and one using a method they like always fails.

The rules cannot come into competition because a model won't like and hate the same thing. They also don't make ATK/DEF irrelevant since not every model will have any preferences and even if the opponent does there's no guarantee you'll have the appropriate action to hand.

(On proposed abilities 3-5) "The rule doesn't seem very suitable because if I choose randomly, I don't know what I'm going to get. Also, if you keep the current board, there is only one item slot. What happens if the slots are already occupied? Does it change the item on the field?"

The rule states "If you play this card when your item slot is empty..." So if the item slot is already occupied the ability does not apply.

Also note the difference between "random" and "random from your deck". A player could include only one sort of item to ensure the outcome desired from such a card, at the expense of flexibility, more likely they'd pick a limited pool of 2-3 aiming to always get something that fits well with their other choices.

I would be worse to get an item entirely at random from the item pool. Though there's no real reason that couldn't be an ability too, it's clearly less useful so a model with it could have slightly higher stats and there's a meaningful choice between models (which again is the goal of a lot of the proposals here)

(On item abilities) "The proposed item abilities are interesting, but some seem unbalanced. For example, ability number 5, in relation to the ability that grants +30 to attack or defense. This could make the game too focused on attack at the expense of defense, unless the ATK bonus is reduced to +20."

The difference between the +30 item and the +10 item is that the +30 item applies to this fight where the +10 item applies to every fight that model is used in for the rest of the match. If a player is cycling their deck quickly (for example with models that draw more cards) they could theoretically use such an item to upgrade a particular model several times and make it very powerful. Again, aimed at offering different ways to play. The +10 item does offer worse stats, it's intentionally weaker because it offers a longer term advantage.

Certainly the numbers may be off and playtesting may show that it's good to increase or decrease some, but it's not as simple as the proposed item with the higher numbers is always better.

(On deckbuilding) "It is essential to have a minimum required number of cards, maybe 20 or 30, because currently, the lack of card limits and costs makes the game easily breakable.

In your example, if Finishers and actions are considered common, doesn't that risk removing common actress cards and ensuring that only rare and epic actress cards are used?"

You make a good point. I wanted to make sure finishers were accessible but it could easily lead to a lot of card pool being excluded. It would be better to allow whatever finishers and items the player wants and apply the suggested rarity rule only to models.

(On rationale for board rule) "I don't understand what you mean by "empty the board." Are you referring to the fact that, instead of replacing everything, part of your board is kept for the next round?"

I was referring to the current behaviour of the game in which all cards are removed from the board following an unsuccessful attack.

The point I was aiming to make was that the proposal of having an unsuccessful attack only remove one card from the defenders side was aimed at making defence more meaningful.

(On finishers/actions/preferences rationale) "That seems a bit unusual. In reality, it comes down to the same thing, because by knowing the opponent's card, you can simply place an unfavorable finisher on your board to penalize them."

It's to do with deckbuilding.

If finishers & actions get a bonus based on your own model then you can build a deck to specialise around them. For example a deck that uses only the "blowjob" action and models that get bonuses for using the blowjob action.

The result is an effective deck in game, but the mechanics of the game are pushing the player away from seeing more porn (which is undesirable) because they'll only ever see one sort of action in game. Also models gaining a bonus for a particular sort of action may find their videos for other actions never get watched.

Conversely if you would like the correct action to defeat an opposing model then during deckbuilding it makes more sense to include some actions of each type. That increases the odds you'll have access to the action necessary to exploit an opponents weakness (or have enough flexibility to find an action that gets around a strength).

The result is that an effective deck is one that contains a mix of actions and there's no reason to associate a particular action with a particular model on your side, making it more likely you'll see more combinations of actions and models in optimal play (seeing a greater proportion of the videos)

(On action cards) "You haven't mentioned the action cards? What is their change in this "revision" ?"

The action cards were unchanged in my proposal.

They indirectly changed by virtue of the preference rule that could apply to actions or finishers. The existence of models immune to a particular action or who are automatically defeated by one inherently makes those cards have different effects despite being the same on paper.

Thank you for these detailed clarifications regarding the mechanics you proposed. They really help to better understand your vision. Some of your ideas, such as those related to preferences, truly deserve to be explored further.

However, I’d like to make a small remark about the presentation of your message. To make the reading experience smoother and to avoid mixing your answers with my questions, it would be better to use ["QUOTE"] tags to cite my questions or comments.

Right now, everything feels a bit confusing, and it’s hard to follow the flow of the discussion. It makes the reading more "messy" than it should be, even though your content is relevant and well-structured.

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

I've already explained the type of stats I would add to the character cards, I'll repeat again... " - Traits or skills that characters may have: "Your next attack does double damage" "This character stays 1 more round after this fight" "The next attack against you does double damage" "Gain/Lose X life" "The opponent discards X cards at random" ETC, ETC, ETC. " <-- As you can see I added positive and negative stats, and no one of them are activated skills but effects that happen as the card is played, pretty much like the item cards do right now.

I see what you mean, but I’m a bit confused about your reference to "Life." Are you suggesting adding a health bar for the characters? Or would it be for the board as a whole? Or are you just talking about lowering the stats of the opponent’s characters?

I wouldn't change nothing on how Action or Finisher cards work in the gameplay right now, except adding videos to the finisher cards (IF you win the attack, so they would play at the end of the round, not as they're played, like Action cards do). The interaction with Action and Finisher cards would come from Characters skills, for example a character having "If your Action/Finisher card is X you gain/lose Y"

We’re on the same page about the importance of adding finisher videos. If I recall correctly, LewdMonkey also brought this up in some of the earlier posts.

"Sincerely, I see no point at all on the 3 variations of the same character, just bloats the pool of cards and you keep unlocking the same videos with them and doesn't add much to the gameplay. This effort would be spent A LOT better into creating new models. As I said before, we're talking about pornstars, there's GAZILLIONS of them..."

That could indeed be a direction to explore if we reduce the variations. I still believe there’s something to be done with these elements, but it seems like it ties into a broader issue.

As you mentioned, balancing the pornstars is essential no matter what. Does this mean, in your opinion, that adding new ones would essentially exclude the concept of rarities? Or do you see a way to incorporate both?

 

[123456789azertyyyyy]

First of all, congratulations on the baby on the way! That’s definitely exciting, and I hope everything goes smoothly for you in the coming weeks!

I appreciate you taking the time to provide an update despite the craziness. It’s great to hear you’ve been working on a new version of the game


A few observations :

Finisher cards are only required for Duos:
Solo Pornstars no longer require Finisher cards to perform attacks. However, playing a Finisher card still grants the bonus of any associated ability. For Duos, Finisher cards remain mandatory to execute an attack.

The idea that Finishers can only be used in Duos could indeed create an imbalance in terms of game pace, as LanguishFox has already pointed out ? This could give an advantage to solo players, allowing them to perform attacks more quickly. We'll need to see how this fits with the abilities system and if it can be adjusted to maintain a balanced experience.

Reduced bonus from linked cards:
The bonus from linked cards has been reduced from 100% of the Duo card's value to 30%.

This seems like a significant reduction on paper, but we’ll need to see the in-game impact to assess whether it creates an imbalance or if it remains viable within the overall dynamics.

Reduced card sell value:
Money gained from selling a card has been reduced by 50%.

I'm not sure reducing the card sell value by 50% is a good idea. I already felt that selling cards wasn't very profitable, and with this reduction, it might become even less appealing for players.

I greatly appreciate the upcoming improvements, including:

Added abilities to cards:
19 unique abilities have been added to Pornstar cards. These abilities trigger depending on the Action, Finisher, or Item card played.

Deck size adjustments:
The minimum deck size is now 30 cards, with the maximum remaining at 40.

New card pack available:
A new card pack is now available, containing only Item, Action, and Finisher cards.

Faster attack animations:
Attack result animations have been sped up to improve pacing.

Automatic starter deck creation:
The starter pack now automatically creates a deck upon acquisition.

Simplified card drawing:
The "Draw" button has been removed. Cards are now automatically added to your hand.

Linked Pornstar card restriction:
The same Pornstar can no longer be linked with itself.

I’m really looking forward to seeing this new version and testing it out. I’m excited to see how these changes will impact the gameplay, and I hope the adjustments will help refine the overall experience.

You didn’t mention any improvements regarding the deck building and card management, such as grouping similar cards together by stacking (with the number of cards shown underneath), to avoid the current mess when there are many cards. Is this something that’s planned for the upcoming update?