I have been struggling to come up with a formula or method for designing cards for my current project, it is still design phase but I have just thought of one method to use and I am unsure as to whether or not it is a valid workflow. Please inform me if this is an absurd and invalid method, or if there is a better method that you know of.

I propose to use a stat sheet system, where each card starts off with 100 stat points to spend on the various elements that give a card its value. In my game that would be Terrain familiarity, elemental affinity, face strength, and any unique abilities etc. In addition, cards would be able to adopt weaknesses in exchange for additional stat points, that can be invested in other strengths. I would make a tool to ease the design process, and that would inform me if it is similar or identical to any other card in the system. Given that the core mechanic is playing cards on a grid, with face values that when exceeding the adjacent cards, turns them, I would first assign a cost to face values then from there assign assumed values to other components. Then using some other heuristic method associate some assumed cost with abilities. Abilities that are innate to a card will be rear and costly, however, I am considering the concept of deferred abilities and unique bonuses, which would be cheaper as a result of the additional costs in time and effort to make effective. A deferred ability would be an ability that is made into a card of its own, that can then be applied to the card in question through play. A unique bonus is the concept of a card that is extra beneficial only to this card, but is useful to all or most cards.

I am a beginner to game design and this isn't very scientific, but it seems like it could be of some use. Please advise. And please suggest a method for associating a reasonable cost on abilities, as they are not traits common to all cards and they could have extremely complex and deep uses that would alter their perceived value.

p.s sorry that I did not edit this and clean up my ramblings, trying to get some things done at the moment.

Thanks in advance!

I think the best TCGs are actually built around a 'perfect imbalance' model.

Having every card answer to an intrinsic 100 points system would be a baseline, but should not determine your final cards (as they would essentially have all of the same value, rarity, etc.)

Also, be sure that you have a correct model for what everything is actually worth. It is easy to fall prey to a system where you 'add up' points and think it balances, but as it turns out, these numbers have widly different values.

One good example of that: X-Wing Miniatures:

Each ship has a value for primary Attack, Dodge (defense), Hull and Shield.

"Adding" these up would be the most absurd way to attempt and balance this game as Shields are strictly better than hull, and dice favor offense over defense.

The best way to design cards and balance the game is play testing. Lots and lots and lots of play testing! Just using some heuristics and math may result in a balanced game, but a play tested game can be balanced and fun! Make up some of the cards and play the game with your friends and see what they find fun and you will also quickly see what kind of stats are OP/UP. So...

1:Make up some cards (using math or your brain or both).
2:Test them.
3:Modify them.
4:Goto 1:

Over the last few years, I've seen a card game (which is played with real cards or on phone/tablet) being made from scratch up to release and now onto releasing expansions and this was exactly the process used to make it fun and balanced.

Edit: Typo

Unless I am mistaken, perfect imbalance is when a game component is allowed to deviate slightly from the balanced condition by design. While that is valid, and on some levels I suspect my current proposed method would satisfy that condition (having elements based on heuristic that would introduce imbalance) I don't think this stat point system would make cards stale. And one of the elements will be number of cards in circulation per thousand active players, and I am considering that I may start this stat the moment a new card is released, so newer cards are also rarer. But I do not find the idea of rare cards throwing into chaos the players stratagems. I want the game to be deep and fair. I want the meta game to be building the optimum deck from your avialable collection to counter the deck the opponent could build from their available collection. As a rule I suspect I will make it so any cards played publicly will be known publicly, and any cards not done so can be shown or hidden.

As a goal, I want new players to be able to get started and play within minutes of starting, and I want old cards to never be outdated, so no power creep, no strictly better etc. I want evolving play. I want every card to have potential for use in some situation that will undoubtedly occur should the player play a fair number of games.

The conditions that stat points could be invested in are as follows, as of my current considerations:

home terrain, elemental affinities, face values(hex so 6 faces), abilities, deferred abilities, day/night affinity, immunities, vulnerabilities, unique bonuses, duplicate limit(number of this card that are allowed in a deck at a time) and number of copies in circulation per thousand active players.

As for play testing, I don't really have that luxury at the moment, though I will explore and play test when possible, and before launching I will of course beta test, and following that as it is digital I will have a trial run of each new set of cards, and tweak the card freely during that time.

Also, in reference to rare cards, im considering that perhaps instead of deviating from the balanced condition greatly, they will be unusually overpowered in a particular aspect. Where as normally stat points would be distributed fairly evenly, a rare card might have an overpowering ability that gives it value as a pillar of some strategy, or it might have extremely high face values but lack abilities and elemental affinities etc. That way it wont just be about who has the better cards, though obviously that would be an important consideration. The more cards you have the harder it will be for opponents to build a deck to beat yours, and you have more available strategies.

But it should be possible for a skilled player to win against an inferior player with a considerably weaker deck, and it should be possible for new players to quickly start challenging experienced and skilled players.

As for play testing, I don't really have that luxury at the moment,

This is not a luxury. It is a necessity!!!

But it should be possible for a skilled player to win against an inferior player with a considerably weaker deck, and it should be possible for new players to quickly start challenging experienced and skilled players.

These goals are conflicting. For skilled players to be able to defeat inferior players, in spite of weaker decks, the game must have a substantial strategic element. For new players to quickly challenge the experienced players, the strategic element of the game needs to be very limited.

I dont believe thats true. It should be deep strategy and anyone capable of strategic thinking should have an edge. The rules should be easy to learn and master, and even a new player should be able to play relatively well. Also, as a new player, their deck is unknown to the opponent, so that gives another edge. And while I said they should be able to play them and potentially win, I didn't say their win/lose ration would be impressive.

and I want old cards to never be outdated, so no power creep,

A universe where everything would be equal and considered 'side-grades' couldn't possibly generate fun, and that's the primary issue with TCGs that attempt to be entirely balanced.

Chess is pretty balanced and it is considered fun... there are many examples of balanced games that are fun. I have to disagree with you. Also, I still consider the proposed system fair rather than balanced. Especially considering some cards that have abilities or deferred abilities, those cant possibly be considered balanced.

I would refrain from doing so. The most dangerous thing in a closed environment is the extremes. Glasscannons, for example, get to be exploited before long, and though they feel inherently frail, players tend to always find ways to utilize them to the max without fear of their weaknesses.

They would be the extremes within the game but still not unfair. I propose that a rare card, for example, a character card, might have most of its points invested in face value, so all of its faces are between 9-F for example, and its ability isnt exceptionally valuable, yet it has adopted a vulnerability to fire element, or something along those lines. Whereas a summon card might fairly strong in all of its face save for one, and it has a powerful ability (maybe you could trade in card(s) to be able to fetch out item cards from your support deck.) they are different but still face the same limitation in points. This way there could be a lot of very varied cards but there wouldn't be inherently unfair cards that need to be binned later.

If the latter happens, it can prove detrimental to your overall game: people that have invested a significant amount of time in your game and acquired cards should be significantly more powerful even if they are not better players. If your game is based on skill rather than collection, you will quickly end up with a tournament scene but few players, thus, your game won't survive long (most of the money comes from casual players that are exploring the game, as opposed to pro players that know exactly which specific cards they want).

if players are better just for having cards, then it isnt fun for new players. And also, its akin to pay to win models...

Also, given that , as you say, casual players are the market, then being able to play and have fun with what is available in your collection, rather than having to have huge numbers of cards, is better for the overall player base. surely...

I don't want to make a game where the winner is determined by how willing the player is to spend money or play my game. I would rather have a game where the most important factors are how capable the player is, how prepared they are, and how good they are at adapting during play.

also, given that situations where the card wouldn't gain value by adopting a weakness to get the points to make further investments, there would be cards that have not fully used their points. So that on top of the heuristic and there is already a deviation from the balanced condition, which I think satisfies the definition of perfect imbalance.

Chess is pretty balanced and it is considered fun... there are many examples of balanced games that are fun. I have to disagree with you. Also, I still consider the proposed system fair rather than balanced. Especially considering some cards that have abilities or deferred abilities, those cant possibly be considered balanced.

Chess is not a balanced game as far as options go.

True, it is a symmetrical game (which has nothing to do with a TCG) but as far as options go, treating the queen as equal to the pawn would be a definite mistake...

Don't mistake balance and symmetrical.

if players are better just for having cards, then it isnt fun for new players. And also, its akin to pay to win models...

The 'well kept secret' of TCGs are that they are essentially Pay to Wins. It is undesirable, and design attempts to minimize that, but the infatuation of collecting cards is only emulated by the sheer ability to grow in power.

Chess is not a balanced game as far as options go.
True, it is a symmetrical game (which has nothing to do with a TCG) but as far as options go, treating the queen as equal to the pawn would be a definite mistake...
Don't mistake balance and symmetrical.

I meant from player to player, it is balanced. The only imbalance being who starts. WIthin my game not all cards are of equal value, just they all have the same constraints. everything in reality operates under the same laws but they aren't all the same. I cant honestly tell what you are suggesting, it seems you are suggesting to not have a system at all and just make things up. But that would result in a total mess... and given how inherently unfair it is, no player will have fun for long.

The 'well kept secret' of TCGs are that they are essentially Pay to Wins. It is undesirable, and design attempts to minimize that, but the infatuation of collecting cards is only emulated by the sheer ability to grow in power.

As a starting rule I've set out to avoid this. So while many tcg's are operated under this model, it doesn't have to be so. And it will not be so in my game. I will make an ethical game that is enjoyable. And players will want more cards to offer them more and deeper strategies, and stronger more optimised decks to face their opponents with, not just buying new boosters to get the newest overpowered cards. I want every card I ever design for the game to have a place regardless of how much time passes and how many new cards are introduced.