I think the most interesting element of the game is perhaps something you may be taking for granted -- the simultaneous reveal. It feels like revealing 3 cards simultaneously allows a sort of prediction / bluffing mechanic that could be really interesting. I could easily picture a kind of counter-play where a clever player sets up a trap for the other, or the unpredictability of the reveals could lead to wild and dramatic swings in the game state. However, I think that requires more interactivity between the players. Your bugs can't really interact with the opponent's bugs (whether taking advantage of their elements or outright killing them) -- it currently feels like they're building their games separately, and while competing in each lane, they don't quite feel like they're "fighting" over it.

I realize the “anthole problem” is not really about the fixing the ant card and goes much deeper but I do have an idea. The theming of the ant is that they work together, but to play them on the same turn you must do a lot (setup multiple lanes with leaf, have multiple ants in hand, and take a hand economy hit as your playing at least 2 bugs and only draw max 1 card). I think you can lean into that theming, along with how we see ants move in a line to make the ability something along the lines of “+2 for every other ant at this location” with ants giving the resource type they need. It creates this March of Ants idea where ants keep showing up one after another (like what we see in nature as they follow each other). You still need a multiple ants to make them strong but the way you play them feels more thematic and powerful. First one ant shows up, not a big deal as it has low power. Then another the next turn and now they are both kinda big, then another the next turn and you lost the location. If the ants had 1 base power with this ability then the total power of the ants in a given lane would be: 1 ant = 1 total power 2 ants = 6 total power (3 each) 3 ants = 15 total power (5 each) 4 ants = 28 total power (7 each) This eliminates needing to have all the ants in hand at the same time and needing to have the right resource planned for them as ants don’t typically care too much about the environment and shape it to what they need themselves. Just my initial thought and the numbers can be tweaked as needed.

One thing I notice here is that you don't seem to have much influence over the cards that enter your hand - recruiting bugs seems to just be a "top card off the deck" sort of thing, and then once you have the bug it seems like you only get to play it once - based on your teach it seems like there's no way to reclaim cards from your discard pile. This means the arc of the game, which seems heavily defined by the bugs you get, is steered more by the deck than by the players. There's not much you can do to make a "long term" investment and then see how each player's investments pay off against each other. An idea that comes to my mind is to let each player have a "home row" of bugs, in addition to the three columns you fight over. The bugs that you place into the home row may have instant effects like "recruit one card," "draw a card," "reclaim one card," "move a bug from one column to another"; or ongoing bonuses like "when you recruit a bug, you can look at 2 extra cards from the recruit deck before choosing one to keep," "you can treat terrain with under a certain flag value as if it has water," etc... (these effects can be in addition to or instead of "lane" effects) For balancing, I would suggest that only 1 (or none) of the rest cards let you draw a card. Instead, bugs with particularly powerful "home row" effects can only be played if you use one or more rest cards in your "planning" step - this would help to create a tension between winning key lanes and building an engine that can pay out in the late-game.

I don't think anyone will ever design a gameplay system without limitations like the ones you are experiencing. I'm of the opinion that part of what makes games fun to play (and fun to design) is seeing how you can push the boundaries of it's systems. When I get to this point in game design, I try to reframe and focus on the positive rather than the negative. I ask myself how I can create more of the fun, memorable moments instead of minimizing the less exciting ones. Compared to the best parts of your game, there will always be aspects that are less fun or "bad." You will never be able to rid yourself of them, but you can always focus on leveraging the best parts. All that to say that this game looks like a lot of fun and I think you are on the right path!

Thanks for this! Having seen this video now, I think Bugfight is definitely at a workable point. I have *a lot* of thoughts, bear with me, apologies in advance. Caveat before reading all of this: I have never designed a game before, so forgive me if I don't contribute anything meaningful or re-tread ground. First, I appreciate your answer on what makes a lane-battler compelling! "Legible sense of drama" is such an eloquent way of putting it. You really *can* see the tension, the strife, clearly illustrated on the board at all times. I think Bugfight, even at this stage, does a good job of representing this drama as the presence of bugs in a lane grows in force. But... if your main concern is regarding the game's complexity as it relates to its "fun-factor"... personally, I would err on the side of complexity. If I may be cheeky and use your words against you: "as the rules add up, so too does the imagined possibility space of the game." Now, you were saying this in reference to Mage Knight, a table-top dungeon crawler that simulates a great deal more than your typical lane-battler. I would argue, however, that the pleasure of adapting to varying conditions, strategizing, and anticipating your opponent's strategy, this exploration of all these complex possibilities and implications, **is** what gives meaning to the "drama." Not just in lane-battlers, but all combative games. Even running with what you've got right now systems-wise, I think there's interesting ways for these systems to play with one another, for certain cards to subvert expectations and manifest the systems in unique ways. For example a land could be a mud puddle that provides both earth and water elements, or a bug could more than one conditional effect that each depend on a different element. Novel suggestions that I'm sure you've already thought of or tested. But if you can manage it, it could both make learning the game more exciting by playing with these expectations, and further deepen the possible game-states and counter-play. Like you said, though, that's kind of your problem right now: you want a game that's deep and engaging, but also quick to pick up and short enough to play during a lunch break. I think that, if your concerns with the game's identity, its complexity, how fun it is to play, are all serious enough, it might be helpful to orient oneself. With all that in mind, I have... a few questions that I think are all pertinent: - Who is the target audience for Bugfight? What demographic trends are there, if any, among the people who typically buy physical tabletop games like this? - How will it be sold/distributed (i.e., brick and mortar game store, online hobbyist website, kickstarter reward, etc.)? - At what point would you consider the game ready for kickstarter? How much time do you want to allot yourself to get to that point? These questions may seem banal and not super-specific to Bugfight at all. But I think, in attempting to ascertain broader-scope limitations, you can use these boundaries to inform your design decisions going forward. For example, if your audience is mostly people who are already familiar with the genre, that could ease your worries about making the game too complex. Or maybe giving yourself a deadline on a given state of feature-completeness could help you prioritize which aspects to refine (or re-design, hehehe). My personal suggestions and spitball ideas: - observe the life-cycles, reproduction, feeding, habitation, and just behavior of a bunch of different bugs. consider their metamorphic stages, what they feed on or prey on, how they affect the environment, ecology, and terrain. lots of possible sources for inspiration, methinks. again, wouldn't be surprised if you already thought to do this. - if you have any bug-related children's books at your place, re-visit those for inspiration. perhaps some fantastical or whimsical elements might work their way into the mechanics instead of just the art/aesthetic. - if you do end up adding any systems, i think "weather" (e.g. changes every (X) turn(s), affects all lanes) or "resources" (e.g. land or bug provides X number of Y element resource) might be interesting concepts that could easily translate into new or existing cards and fit into the existing flow of the game. - if you're concerned with how long it takes to play a game of Bugfight, there's several different ways you can address this. Card power balance, victory conditions, how many and/or what type of cards each player gets at the beginning, etc. It took me a while to "organize" these "thoughts," and I don't know if I made anything resembling an actionable or coherent point, but thanks for reading anyway, and thanks again for the video! Personal Highlights: 13:54 "Sorry I just.. do better thinking when I'm walking" he just like me fr!! 16:30 I can't help but project a metaphor here. You, taking in the scenery, at the height of your consternation between larger mechanics and balance minutiae, as if lost whether your focus should be on the forest or the trees. I wouldn't be surprised if this was intentional!!

Everyone else has already said what I could possibly say. I think the fundamental underlying design looks solid and that you will probably find the most success thinking about the first layer above the rules and grammar: the location cards and bug cards. I really like the energy system, I think notably you have multiple unique mechanics that are different from others in the genre, so I wouldn't strip the whole thing down for parts just yet at least. Best of luck, I know it can be a difficult process thinking about changing things fundamentally!

I like the concept and sticking to just cards makes for a much more compact product. One way I think could improve this without touching cards is simply changing the draw mechanic. You could add interactivity by allowing each draw action to be a draw 2 and a discard, but allow each player to draw from the discard to make the selection options provide counters and make the aspect of discarding a potential downside, encouraging more deep thought of what stays in your hand. You could also limit the discard to only the two cards drawn if that provides too much decision fatigue. Anyways, good luck.

The thing I would do is broaden your bugs. Ant, Hopper, Butterfly, Moth, and so on can be an attribute or class of bug. That means army ants, worker ants (or however you name each card), and so on would be unique in their own way, and then the class (Ant, Hopper, Butterfly, etc.) can be a reference and a point of interaction. It is a bit of a parasitic design, but you already have that with elements triggering card effects. You can have bugs that gain an increase depending on elements, class of bug, or even the territory you are fighting for. Some bugs might be able to get certain types of territories easier than others, while some could also neutralize bonuses or reduce the base power of other bugs (based on element, territory, or class of bug). This is kind of similar to a game I am designing, but I don't use lanes, and the resource system is slightly different as well. It is mostly building zones and trying to fill the table with x# of cards to attain victory while trying to defend against x# of attrition (too much attrition = a loss). This is to say that the stacking of cards tells a story of progress and loss, and it is physically represented on the table. I like the system you came up with and the kind of narrative your game tells. I think you are onto something, and I would certainly keep it up.

Obviously, you will ultimately make all the decisions for what the identity of your game is. But to me the thing that stands out as unique is acutally the simplicity. Most battlers that I can think of are pretty rules intensive and strategy heavy, so being able to pick it up and play quick is actually pretty cool in my eyes (though I'm not the most familiar with lane battlers in particular, so maybe this is off base). If you decide to lean more on this, then you'll definitely need to keep the design pretty much as minimal as you have now. Wish you the best of luck in development man! Seems like a pretty fun framework for a game

This is really inspiring and relatable to anyone with an idea for a board game! Echoing an earlier comment, more player interaction might help tie it all together. A few ideas: Maybe there’s a bug (praying mantis?) that can eat/discard one bug in the same location. You could use it to get rid of an opponent bug or even replace one of your own. Maybe the ant can pull another ant from the bug drafting deck or maybe it allows you to play one extra ant from your hand (this would give your opponent more info about what bugs you played but may also add to the drama of the reveal). Love what you’re doing-keep it up.

"lane battler" was a new term to me, so idk what the competition looks like. But what I like about this is the ecology theme--I'd say lean into the flavor of "building an ecosystem" and you'd have a game I'd have fun showing to my friends

Thanks for the intro to the game! I love how you're laying it all out for us to see. I love the candid "talking to the camera" section at the end that outlines your concerns as designer. I don't have any major advice though, unfortunately :(

I like the idea of bugs fighting over rocks and trash is fun. My thoughts. I think leaning into the theather of reavealing cards is important to the game. I feel like placing down three cards per turn underminds that a bit. It is a lot of new information to parse each turn. It also makes the choices harder because you have to actively think about the sequence of events you want to set up in 3 rows. Having to place a resource in a row first to be able to use it in a subsequent turn times that by three rows, that is a lot of up front planning. I would find a way for players to be both surprised and out think what the opponent is going to play. Give players some information that might give them insight into what opponents will play but enough flexibility to still surprise. I would design the resource and ability sysem in such a way that each type of resource offers a specific collection of abilities. That would give players allow players to plan but not be sure whst the opponent will do. And I would only play one card per turn. If you wanted to preserve the mystery of what line they would be playing into, you could give each player two dummy cards to place in the other 2 lines. I like the idea of taking the location cards. I can't twll if they do anything besides give end game points. I think it could be interesting if the locations gave the player who takes them an ability. Locations with better abilities could be balanced by having less points. They could be abilities that grant a permanent bonus or be a one shot power that you just flip over to show it is used. Also it could be interesting to have different capture requirements besides reqching a strength threshold first. Maybe the location is captured if any bug is there but it goes to the player with the highest power. Maybe if you have 3 of the same bug you caputre. Would open up stratigic choices. Go for low scoring easy to win cards or with abilities or try and secure those big scoring cards and wait for the bonuses. I think the plus bonus cards are clunky. I would let players chain extra bugs into play with special abilities. Lets you plan a combo and discovering combos is fun. Also i would have bugs that knock bugs off the other side. Lets you play a sort of resource manipulation game. Also bugs that care about resources on the opponent's side might be interesting. Just some ideas to spice things up. Good luck with your game. Interesting video. Enjoyed it.

Hey Michael, this was really cool to watch, especially as someone who is working on their own prototype for an (alibet digital!) card game at the moment. I think the game looks great so far. I like the whole simultaneous reveal thing. As another comment has pointed out, there's a lot of opportunity for bluffing/prediction there. I'm wondering if the problem with the ant is that it's a little too archetype-y for the game. If this game pushed more into its deckbuilding nature akin to something like Slay The Spire, where how you construct your deck/build *is* essentially the game, then something like the ant would work quite well. However, this doesn't look like that kind of game. It (looks like?) everyone starts with the same deck, so it's more determined by short-form strategy rather than any overarching plans, which doesn't sound like a good fit for the ant. I'm rambling now, I hope you manage to come up with a good solution - looking forward to seeing more!

Hey here’s something to think about: every turn you have the option to play a combination of bugs and rests. How about adding more than one type of rest card so that you have more game actions that are always available to you?This idea reminds me of a game I love to play called “bring out yer dead” which has a similar play 3 face down and then reveal mechanic. Resting is essentially 50% of the cards you play in the game, so adding more choice for the player in that category could promote deeper strategy.

100% I've definitely constantly rethought over and over about whether i should redesign game elements/design or if i should just rebalance/experiment within the existing ruleset that i have established. So I think that's something that will continue to harass your mind as you continue to design, but at some point you will have to say "no, i dont want to make this game any more complicated and i believe there is enough design space for interesting decisions" and then just focus on the cards. Ultimately that is the goal: make a system that is simple but deep enough to match the complexity you are aiming for, that is punchy enough that it has some "wow" moments, and that allows for interesting decisions (i.e. the players feel they had some impact on the outcome). But, i think that one of the first things you need to decide on is "who is the target audience for this game?" (Which is something you mentioned in terms of the game having an identity crisis of sorts in terms of its complexity). Is this for a child who is going to learn one of their first games? Or is this for a hardcore gamer that knows how to play MTG and who already has played SmashUp? How you should design your game is entirely dependent on the answer to that, knowing your target audience/play scenario is key. That being said, i dont think rebalancing the ant will determine if your game is fun or not. Im a big MTG player, and i believe that even though i know almost all the cards in Standard currently, with all their complex rules and interactions, i think the game of Mtg is still fun if you just play with cards that only have basic keywords (flying, vigilance etc.) and simple instants/sorceries (destroy target creature, give target creature hexproof and lifelink, draw 2 cards, deal 3 damage to any target etc. etc.). So rebalancing one card in MTG might make an individual meta more or less interesting but it isnt stopping the game from being interesting as a whole. I do think you should rebalance the ant if noone wants to play it (since that indicates its a bit flawed), but i think you should have a think as well about what makes your game interesting (perhaps do this first before trying to fix the ant haha, no point balancing the ant if you change your game fundamentally later haha). For rebalancing the ant: i think having the "play two ants in one turn for this to be a good card" restriction is a bit too much for a game which only lets you play 3 cards per turn (and what is your hand size? What are the odds of ever having two ants in your hand?). I might change it to be something like "get +2 power for each other ant in this lane" or "get +3 power if there is another ant on this lane" or "get +2 if you control another ant in any other lane" (one of the first two options probably works best flavour wise since it indicates the ants working together for the common goal). This way you get bonuses but aren't dependant on having multiple ants in turn to play, and then you and your opponent are having to think "ooo, do i try to stop these ants building up or ignore them? Its early in this location should i just ignore them and build here too or should i focus elsewhere since they will eventually overwhelm me?" Etc. interesting decisions. As it is designed now it is reliant on luck (having multiple ants in hand to be able to play, and having a location with a leaf) and lots of foreplanning (being able to get a leaf down before your big ant turn), but then ultimately the decision is fairly easy if you can play them for extra bonuses you will do so since 7 points vs 2 points times 2-3 ants is such a huge swing. For your overall game design, im still not fully understanding the rules, so i cant really comment. Can i play multiple cards into one lane on a single turn? Or do i need to play one card in each lane (Im guessing this one)? ; if i have a bug (bug A) with a flower on it, and then i place another bug (bug B) that needs a flower to do stuff, and then i place a third bug (bug C) in that lane that also needs a flower to do stuff, can both bug B and bug C utilise the flower? Or does but B use it up and therefore bug C needs a new flower source? (Im sort of assuming they both can use it, but im not sure). Sidenote: You might want to move the type and the power away from each other in the card layout, because when i first read the card i assumed the but had 4 water, and then realised it was 4 power and was also water type/energy. Regardless of the rules you will want to make sure your ruleset and cards allow for interesting decisions, and ideally for interaction between players and lanes (note: this has some possibilities to create a lot of complexity in terms of timing of resolution of things if you have multiple cards getting revealed simultaneously that affect each other and affect opponents stuff/affect lanes. You will need rules on the order things resolve... Which potentially takes it away from being kid friendly...). But i do think you want some interactivity to spice things up a bit, not too much 'take that' but just enough that you can disrupt your opponents stuff and so they need to think about how to protect their gameplan etc. things that can be used to destroy other cards (this could be a spell like the rest, or it could be a bug that perhaps has to sacrifice itself so you lose some power/element but can disrupt your opponent more), things that can protect your cards, things that can move your cards to other lanes, things that can draw you cards (note this is more powerful than people usually think, so dont to overboard) or allow you to rearrange the top of the deck to help determine who draws what next etc. If you have lots of these effects that stack and interact together then your game will become quite complex and thinky (and for a gamer like me: interesting), if you are targeting a younger/more casual audience though (which you probably are with the theme?) then you could have effects that have more immediate effects and have some more randomisation involved (probably involving whatever is on the top of the deck, rather than introducing dice or other forms of randomisation). Sorry for the ted talk/blog post. Hopefully some of it helps you though and gives you some ideas of your own on how to make the game the best version of what you want it to be.

My first thoughts on the game is that it looks really fun. The randomness with the simultaneous reveals, locations, and recruit deck will make for a new experience every game. I like the energy system, I like that bugs can add their energy to a lane, and I like that once the bug does it’s thing it’s gone (no static effects to keep up with). There is a lot of hidden depth that we didn’t get to see since the recruitment deck looks like the place with the most powerful effects. I think cards need to exist that effect your opponents board to create a more interactive game, rather than two games of solitaire going on at the same time. “My man eater bug eats what you played in my lane, my slug gets extra power for how many rests you played, etc.” The ant doesn’t look fun at all, I agree. It has a couple problems that I think can be fixed pretty easily. 1: the card is supposed to be your goomba, but it’s too complicated to pull off effectively as a base and becomes too powerful. Having two strict requirements on the same turn is just too many hoops to jump through for what looks like one of the most basic cards in the game. Buffing it up to +7 seems cool, but is maybe a bit too swingy for a basic card. 2: The card gets buffs from other lanes, which for an ant doesn’t make thematic sense. My suggestion is an effect like “gains +X for every other ant in this lane” which is mechanically simple and builds off of the thematic idea of the ants building a colony at a certain location. Also, some simple rules questions: If two players capture and area simultaneously, what happens? If they have equal power that’s greater than the capture requirement, what happens? Are there locations for lanes that affect what’s happening on the board, or they all post-game effects? Overall the game looks really interesting and I’m excited to watch more videos and get a chance to play in the future when the time comes!

I don't have any mindset advice, but i can clearly see how torturous the subconscious desire to start from scratch must be. My game suggestion is, occasionally a player is allowed to pick a card to permanently add to their deck, to get at least some sort of deck theme/synergy going?? Idk when that occasion would be however!

Hi G&C! Thank you for the vid, just found your channel (I wish I had time to record my thoughts, would probably make me a better designer lol) I know what you mean about the "system design" spiral, but you got to where you got to because of a set of design objectives (simple, quick to learn, etc,) if you think the system is not hitting those objectives then by all means change it but if its just that some cards aren't working start by adjusting them. The dichotomy of simple ad strategic is always hard, I will say though that you may find it simple but that is because you know the game inside and out, it is probably twice as complex as you personally think it is! As for the game itself, do the bugs on your opponent side make any effect (other than them capturing the objective before you?) i.e can you use their symbols?

As a fellow amateur designer working toward their first publication, the discussion of your anxieties really hits close to home. I do think you have something here. In particular, I think the Rest card draw system is genuinely brilliant. Whatever else you change or balance, I recommend you hold onto that particular mechanism relatively unchanged from what it currently is. Looking forward to following this.

Just found this, and I love the theme! Vaguely reminiscent of a small wargame released in the 70’s called “Chitin”. I loved that game, and insect warfare in general, as a concept. Your game is more abstract, but interesting nonetheless.

So a lot has been said already, and it is a very interesting comment section to read through! Which speaks in favor of the video and the game itself. One time I saw the game SmashUp has been mentioned. And it needs to be mentioned a lot more. If you haven't played it, please purchase it and play it, often. Because it seems to be the vibe that you are aiming for, in ways of difficulty and light-heartedness and quirks. I do not think that you are making a copy of SmashUp, the mechanics are already different enough. But I think, in comparison to all the other lane battlers out there (Air, Land & Sea, SmashUp, Riftforce, Schotten Totten, Radlands, and others), there is much more to gain in the bases/lanes aspect. Because that's where there is no innovation at all. Perhaps you need to collect bases, and whoever collected the most is the winner, or whoever collected all 4 types. Maybe bases increase, and you stack a base upon another base, increasing the breaking point. Perhaps the bases don't give the same rewards to both players? Or bases are cocoons, which turn into bug cards for the winner. The most heard comment is on randomness, which I totally agree with. Players need some sort of control in order to build towards something, making valuable decisions that will lead to the stories you admire. A small suggestion, have multiple draw decks for different types of bugs, and choose from which deck you recruit. Or choose one of the four elements, and reveal until you draw that element. Hopefully this feedback didn't come across too bold, you're making something fun and I hope you find the missing link you're searching for. (Art isn't where you're missing link is, I'm an art-director and any decent artist will make this look fun in the way your looking for, but the decisions the players make are what create the fun, when you capture that fun, then the artist can make art that supports that fun).

Ants are pretty basic but strong. I don't know if you have a bug with no bonuses or abilities yet has a high power than normal, but that's always a good route to go.

I think you're right, just go with it. If you start redesigning like that, you'll never finish. Make the game, get it out there, and then you're free to think about foundational design issues for your next project.

having 2 copies of the same card is difficult in every tcg i've ever tried save pokemon. you'd need to do the skull servant thing where you add a million ways to tutor them out and maybe other cards are technically named "ant" etc I havent played obviously, but the game also seems slow paced. For every bug you have to play a rest. Maybe "draw 1 per turn" is a possible accomodation. that said there's a strong foundation here and I'd play the full version 100% edit: last thing is that breezy and complex arent exclusive e.g. chess

The struggle I see with the ant is the same struggle I feel for games like Star Realms, where the issue is that the more complex strategy a card requires the more it is basically determined by randomness. What card do you draw when, and how much control do you have what cards get into your deck? If those things are fully randomized, then its a chance combo rather than a strategy. It could be that those types of cards can only really work in a game with more control.

I like the concept of the element system, but from the cards shown, I don't think it is reaching its full potential. In a game that is all about predicting your opponent's intentions, the elements you play to a lane should forecast your plan, but I don't see any particular pattern to what type of abilities are unlocked by each element. If one element was cross-lane synergy effects (ie Ant) another was economy (ie Butterfly) and another "attack" type cards (ie, cancel out the opposing card played here), etc. that would create a lot more interaction and bluffing within the existing system. The numbers also feel a bit off? After more thorough balancing and tuning, I'd hope you could cut them all roughly in half, and replace the numbered cards with just "+1" tokens (worth 2 points now.) So all card abilities either give +1 (a small hurdle) or +2 (a big hurdle, like activating the ant.) And the cards themselves would be 1, 2, or (with a downside) 3. Which I think would make grouping them into 5s for quick counting easier.

Thanks for the video, incredible work! Inspiring too, although the "ant walk" talk was a bit disheartening to hear. The game seemed so incredibly cool and mostly elegant too but if anyone, it is you who knows if the game isn't what it is supposed to be. If I were you and had lots of time (I know you don't, but hypothetically...) I might try writing down all of the separate systems/parts of the design of the game and try to change perhaps 2-3 of those at the same time and then try playing the game and reflecting on the changes - how did those feel, was one better than the others, did they work well together or not? And then try again with the original design but change 2-3 other systems this time. But of course it would require a great amount of time and work and certainly some or even most of the systems/mechanics can't just be changed very easily if they are an integral part of the game's design. But these were just a couple of my thoughts. I don't work in the games industry, I have only done a couple card game prototypes myself but nothing too crazy. :)

I am really excited to see where this series goes. Designing simple games is pretty tricky, in part because in my experience, the simpler a game is, the more you have to rely on fundamental changes to address issues that crop up in gameplay, even if they are relatively minor. I've designed some very simple games that rely on the interaction of 6 cards that interact with a simple board state, and in a design like that if an issue crops up in the design, it often requires some sort of change to the foundational systems that other parts of the game relied on. There are just fewer levers to pull on to make changes, and the levers that do exist make far bigger changes. I have a lot of respect for excellent, minimalist games because finding that perfect alignment of a few simple mechanics is incredibly difficult. Do you have some sort of metric in place to know when you should pivot away from addressing Ant Hole Problems and start focusing on refining the existing cards? How do you know when it's time to work on fleshing out the potentially flawed/limited system you currently have rather than building a stronger foundation?

Something that may be cool is to add an 'Environment (cold, rain, heat...)' effect to the game that can buff or nerf bugs, or have an effect on some lanes. It can last some fixed amount of turns or change when a capture happens, for example. Might add some more sources of synergy :)

Just found this channel. The game looks really fun! I like the prototype art. It seems easy to read. Have you started play testing this yet? Seems like you’re at that stage. I certainly would be interested.

About your "Ant" problem. I have recently had a similar problem with a worker placement game I have on the design table at the moment. Some of the resources are needed but a worker placement with resources with too many resources is not fun at all. feels more like item management. So I removed the entire system and wanted to start again. (Great Idea, but after 2 days, not helping as it became a downward spiral where the more I change, the more the more other system also have to change... Listening to your system with the Rest (being a way to draw cards is simple and yet so clean - Love it) but the Ant, made me wonder, you said no player wants to play the ant as situation where the ant is powerful is just that, situational and longer gameplan, how about the Ant as Multi Colour Energy. If you turn ants (as base) into each ant being its own energy that can feed into another bug on the field, but more then 1 ant in a row or column becomes "Colony" so leaning more into the nature of the bug instead? Your idea of the bug lane battle game makes me think of the nature of the cards VS birds in a game like Wingspan where an ability has some reference to the animal. And not to dive to deep into the buggy nature of Formicidae, but other bugs eat Ants, is there a way to use that as mechanic, like in digimon TCG where a Digi Egg is needed to hatch a baby? And without to many new mechanics, having ants in each lane VS sacrificing an ant for another bug where if you use the ant as food, there is a + effect on the new bug (or only some bugs can have that). It can create a base of strategy where when an ant is played, the other player might not know what your next more would be.

Interesting video! Have you read Jamie Stegmiers’ book on crowd funding? how is your play testing going?

Does the energy system add fun mechanics and decisions for the play testers? It looks like it might be able to, but the example cards I saw it just seem to show the mechanic turning your bug designs into blank cards with numbers early on and only maybe later getting to use the interesting effects attached.

I just saw a clip on KZfaq where a video game marketing specialist (Chris something lol) mentions that successful games are 1/3 the same as something else, 1/3 an improvement over something that already exists and 1/3 new aspects. I think you are close to that: the strategy through time (the fact that cards placed before can trigger new ones) adds new strategic depth to the genre; obviously a 3 card line battle game is something people are familiar with; and finally I think the fact that your theatre having effects at the end of the game and also a "flag" value that needs to be reached to take them is an improvement over something like Air, Land and Sea. I think this is an interesting game design. The theme is original. Though some people hate bugs lol!!! I am not sure about the childish art style you are going for in the final product. I find too many games go for that. Perhaps it depends on the audience too. If making a family game I suppose it makes sense but then the rules and depth is more than this I'd say. So I would try to find an original art style. Say, impressionism or any genre that you like and that is not done often. Cheers!

When are you dropping the Cambrian Explosion expansion

Shout out to ultra pro sleeves. Crinkliest sleeves on the market. Gotta love that annoying little watermark on em.

So like. What's your target audience? Cus yeah you could fine tune this and try to become MTG but simple (an oxymoron), or something else. Because, when I walk into my local games store, I see a lot of games like this. That's not me saying it's derivative, your idea is unique, but what I mean is that there's a few complex games at the tip top, then there's a bunch of little games that occupy a HUGE wall of shelves that all look like something I could pick up, and take with me on a camping trip or something. I just got back from a trip to the mountains with my mother and some family friends. My mum HATED Catan, but we *all* had a lot of fun playing Dixit. These are the kind of games that actually get bought as a stand alone product by families and such. Now, sure, you're looking to go the kickstarter route, which *is* a different target audience. They're people who are invested in board games more. So you *do* have a more difficult audience to appeal to. But I think you've still got a corner there. However, if I were you, I'd at least *check* how hard it is to get a publisher. Exploding Kittens was the game of the summer and... your game is better than exploding kittens. Actually I think that started as a kickstarter game too, but it's published now. So that goes to show how much I know about publishing (nothing at all). But surely it's worth checking out!

Your game isn't broken. all card games have bad cards that players will refuse to play. if you want to make the ants work maybe try other variations on the the teamwork theme you seemed to be going for, for example, a cumulative bonus that rewards you for playing multiple ants to the same location.

🪲⚔

game should work without ants.