C77: Properties changes

In the office, I worked on the details of the design drafts.

The Three Kingdoms was relatively simple. Every company in the country has its own Three Kingdoms on the Game Store.

I borrowed the design concept of Charge for this game and then localized it into the Three Kingdoms theme.

For instance, the protagonists, Loyal ministers, rebels, and traitors in the game corresponded to the sheriff, Deputy sheriff, traitor, and gangster.

Compared to Charge, Three Kingdoms also had some novel improvements. For example, each of the general characters that players control has unique skills,

History and story attached to them. Each general will have MOBA characters like details.

In addition to the card skill effects, Three Kingdoms has undergone detailed changes, setting it apart from the original Charge.

Setting aside the so-called balance issues, the playability of Three Kingdoms is quite high.

It can be described as a game of luck and strategy. Although Luck is more known.

Previously, many players had mentioned Three Kingdoms with gritted teeth—not because of the game itself, but due to the operation of the game's system behind it.

It can even be said that undercard management, this game survived for a decade and still retained a certain vitality, which is nothing short of a miracle.

If we talk about the grievances related to cards, there are new complaints every year.

But if we mention the game's rise to fame, it has nothing to do with the online version of Three Kingdoms.

This fame, however, was mostly a benefit due to player-designed cards.

The generals inside were designed by the players themselves, with the official team making subtle balance adjustments.

Mainly, this satisfies the player's desire to design their generals. Heck, some even added their own body doubles to the game while adjusting them with a template. Thus making up a skin for a general.

As a board game, these cards are unbalanced. Everyone plays online together, and if someone doesn't want to participate, they don't have to join.

But what's most bizarre about Three Kingdoms in my previous life is the existence of two systems within one game.

It's divided into the South Tour Card and the North Tour Card. One governs the physical offline board game, while the other handles the online version.

When the online version of Three Kingdoms was introduced, the operation team had their head bonked with inspiration.

"These ready-made generals are too good!"

"Wouldn't it be a waste not to include them?"

So, they decided to add them—and, of course, sell them to players.

This caused the balance of the Three Kingdoms to spiral out of control, especially with Might Dai and Bu Lianshi in 2012, followed by Cao Cow and Queen Fu in 2013.

It can be said that this opened the floodgates for an era of unbalanced generals.

Just how unbalanced were these generals?

Some players even ban Cao Cow and Queen Fu.

These overpowered generals significantly impacted the game environment.

Why did this happen? I know the answer all too well.

This imbalance set the stage for the future. Each new generation of generals was stronger than the last. The early generals who relied on basic attacks and defenses became completely obsolete.

The era of straightforward warfare transitioned into an era of supernatural abilities.

Of course, when it comes to game development—especially in card games. Generals becoming increasingly powerful over time is inevitable. The key is maintaining a delicate balance.

Although this upset a lot of players, there was still room to salvage the situation.

But did they come to their senses? Do you think this was the peak of frustrated players?

If so, you'd be underestimating the developers.

First, they announced that by purchasing any 23 paid generals, players could permanently access Zuo Ci's event. Then, they threw the cheapest generals, which most players had bought, into the free membership pool.

The game needed a new engine to improve visuals and enhance player experience.

How thoughtful, right?

But there's a catch: veteran players couldn't transfer their previous generals or skins to the new version!

The official team also launched an event, offering a share of 200 million yuan in treasures. From the afternoon until 11 p.m., only around 3,000 players were participating. But in the last ten minutes of the event, suddenly, over 400,000 ghosts appeared.

The official explanation was these players happened to be online within ten minutes.

Are we saying it's just a coincidence?

With the phrase Our game is booming, there's a sense of irony.

Of course, there are still some aspects to focus on, such as the art in the game.

The art in the early days of Three Kingdoms was a bit of a mix.

After all, Three Kingdoms started as a small indie project, developed by Huang Kai and his girlfriend.

Most of the characters came from material borrowed from Three Kingdoms, and even the official version borrowed heavily from various comics later.

For example, the action for the charge in the basic card was inspired by Ichimaru Gin from Bleach.

But these weren't major issues, as the core strength of Three Kingdoms lies in its mechanics and structure.

So for Three Kingdoms Kill, there's no need to change anything about the game rules.

For now, we're not adding any overpowered generals and will focus on balancing the game more broadly in the future.

The primary focus will be on the online version, and Three Kingdoms will be offered to players as a free game.

We'll make revenue mainly through cosmetic items like skins.

As for the generals, we'll implement a training mode.

In addition to the basic generals, a few free ones will rotate each week for players to use.

Players will compete in the game and earn gold coins, with daily tasks that reward gold coins upon completion.

These gold coins can be used to buy generals and skins, though players can purchase them directly.

The aim is that profit is secondary. The main focus is growing the game and increasing player retention.

Other than cosmetics, everything in Three Kingdoms will be free for players.

And when it comes to buying generals, we won't make it overly restrictive — we won't implement systems where players can only buy one hero per month.

The main goal of Three Kingdoms is to strengthen player engagement on the Neon game platform.

Of course, there will be additional optimizations. For instance, in offline board games, the roles of traitors, loyal ministers, lords, and rebels aren't all that different because the social aspect outweighs the gameplay mechanics.

But the online version is completely reversed. In this version, the game's winning and losing attributes hold more weight than its social attributes, and players are given scores that reflect their matching level.

This has led to a situation where many people are reluctant to take on the role of the traitor.

In my previous experience with Three Kingdoms, a similar situation occurred. Many players who were traitors would either quit the game outright or quickly turn on the protagonist to end the game as soon as possible. At that time, Three Kingdoms was even nicknamed Anti-Traitor.

This imbalance was problematic.

So, I intend to address this by balancing the role of the traitor through third-party factors.

For example, linking rewards to the traitor's ability to control the field. The traitor's win rate is low mainly because the win conditions are tough—it requires killing everyone except the lord and then killing the lord. Any other result leads to failure.

In such a scenario, even if a few points are deducted for failure, is it fair for someone who controls the field skillfully to still lose points?

This is why many players are unwilling to play as traitors.

To fix this, my design ties the score and rewards of the traitor not just to victory or defeat but to how well the player controls the field.

For instance, a traitor who wins might get 20 points. If the game ends with the traitor and the lord both losing, the traitor can still earn 15 points. If the traitor fails but manages to play well enough to disrupt the lord and the rebels, they might still receive 10 points.

The traitor is a unique third-party faction, and its score should not be based purely on winning or losing.

Of course, the actual outcome will depend on player feedback once the game is officially launched and tested.

Compared to Three Kingdoms Kill, another game, JellyMan, is designed to spread quickly.

While JellyMan may not have the same stickiness as a card-based battle game like Three Kingdoms, it surpasses its short-term popularity. In the previous version, JellyMan sold 10 million copies per month on Steam alone.

This proves the game's immense appeal.

Unlike Overcooked, JellyMan is a more versatile entertainment game. Even as a solo player, you can have a good experience playing it.

This is something cooperative games like Overcooked can't quite match.

After all, many gamers are what we call lone wolves. It's not that they don't have friends or partners—it's just that their friends or partners either don't like to play games or don't have time.

In contrast to Three Kingdoms, JellyMan also supports a modification feature where players can design their levels.

The gameplay structure of JellyMan isn't overly complex. What stands out, however, is the game's unique physics engine.

Part of the magic of JellyMan lies in the physical feedback it provides. The jelly-like characters wobble to the finish line with a rubbery, spring-like movement. This response became a hidden selling point, turning the game into a sandbox for chaotic fun.

Other games like GayFist, Animalparty, and Human Fallout also attract players with their chaotic, comical physics. The difference with JellyMan is that it allows for multiplayer competition while also borrowing elements from variety shows, making it a better experience for lone wolf players.

As a result, it outsold many of these games.

>>>>>>>

Don't forget to shout out for issue and problems in the text.