Hellsword: Web3 Card Game Design in a Voxel Sandbox
Blockchain-Like Mechanics & Private Chain Integration
Hellsword plans to use a private blockchain to manage cards and gameplay assets. A private chain (also called permissioned) can perform many of the same functions as public crypto networks but in a closed environment
. This means card ownership, minting, and upgrades can be recorded on an immutable ledger that only the game’s nodes validate, rather than on a fully public network. The feasibility is high – many enterprise and gaming projects use private or consortium blockchains when full decentralization isn’t practical. The trade-off is that players must trust the game operator (since a private ledger isn’t publicly verifiable)
, but in return they get fast, fee-free transactions and the developer retains control to balance the game. In Hellsword, every card could exist as a unique token on the private chain, ensuring provable ownership and history for the player while allowing the developers to maintain authority over game balance.
Comparison – Sidechains vs. Custom Chain: Instead of an in-house chain, the team could use an Ethereum sidechain or Layer-2 like Polygon or Immutable X. Sidechains are separate blockchains that run in parallel to a main network, offering high throughput and low fees while remaining public
. For example, Polygon is a popular choice for Web3 games, providing faster and cheaper transactions than Ethereum mainnet and an established ecosystem
. Immutable X, a Layer-2 specialized for NFTs, enables instant, zero-gas trades secured by Ethereum
– it’s used by Gods Unchained to let players trade cards without paying gas
. These solutions give some decentralization and compatibility with external marketplaces. By contrast, a custom private blockchain can be tailored exactly to Hellsword’s needs (governed entirely by the game). This offers more flexibility (custom rules, no external dependencies) and naturally gas-less transactions since the game controls the network. However, a private chain lacks the public security guarantees – there’s no “global” miner/validator set, only the devs’ servers. In short, public sidechains/L2s grant broader player ownership and interoperability at the cost of some complexity, whereas a private chain keeps things self-contained and smooth for users (no wallets or gas to manage)
. The optimal choice might even be a hybrid: for instance, Oasys and other gaming projects combine private and public layers to get the best of both (fast in-game ops with an option to bridge assets out)
.
On-Chain vs Off-Chain Data: Not everything needs to live on the blockchain. Hellsword will likely store heavy content (artwork, 3D voxel data, large metadata) off-chain via IPFS or traditional databases, while keeping critical ownership info on-chain. This pattern is common: many NFT projects store only a token ID and a URI or hash on-chain, with the actual image or item stats in decentralized storage like IPFS
. The blockchain entry acts as a certificate pointing to the asset. This approach drastically cuts costs and improves speed, since writing large data on-chain is expensive and slow
. The downside is off-chain data could, in theory, be altered or lost if not properly managed
. To mitigate that, Hellsword can pin data on IPFS (for immutability) and include content hashes on the private chain so any tampering is detectable. For dynamic game data (like a card’s evolving stats or a player’s inventory), a traditional game database might be used in tandem with the blockchain. The game server would then synchronize on-chain transactions with off-chain state – for example, when a card is traded on-chain, the off-chain inventory service updates immediately. Middleware can help with this syncing; tools like Hyperledger FireFly or custom indexers ensure the game state and blockchain ledger stay consistent in real-time
. The key design point is to use the blockchain for what it’s best at (secure ownership, transaction audit trail
) and off-chain for what it does best (fast queries, bulk data, confidential info), achieving a balance in performance and transparency
.
Smart-Contract-Like Functionality: Even on a private chain, Hellsword can leverage smart-contract logic to regulate important game actions. The developers might deploy custom contracts or chain code that define rules for minting new cards, merging/fusing cards, and player-to-player trades, very much like Ethereum smart contracts. This ensures that the rules are enforced by code on the ledger, not just by the game client. For instance, the contract for card minting can require that a player spend the correct amount of resources and that any prerequisites (e.g. owning the base cards to fuse) are met before a new card token is created. Encoding these rules on-chain prevents exploits like item duplication or unauthorized upgrades – the chain won’t record a mint transaction unless it follows the protocol. In public NFT games, smart contracts autonomously manage the creation and transfer of NFTs to create a trustless, verifiable framework
. Hellsword’s private chain can mimic that: when you fuse two cards, a contract could burn the originals and mint the new fused card in one atomic action, guaranteeing no one can cheat the process or create cards out of thin air. Another benefit is transparency: players (and developers) can audit on-chain logs to see how every card was created or exchanged, adding credibility to the game economy. In effect, Hellsword’s blockchain layer will operate like the game’s secure backbone, with coded “smart” rules for issuance, trades, and upgrades – very similar to on-chain game logic in decentralized games, except running under the game studio’s permissioned control.
Native Token Economy & Regulation
Hellsword will feature a native in-game token that underpins its economy. Players can earn this token through various gameplay activities and then spend it on numerous in-game functions. Designing this token economy for sustainability is critical – many Web3 games have failed due to uncontrolled inflation or exploitation
. Below we outline how Hellsword’s token might be earned and used, and the measures to keep its value stable and the economy healthy.
Earning Tokens – Faucets: The game will reward tokens for active play, but in carefully balanced ways. In Hellsword’s world, players might salvage cards (dismantle unwanted cards) to extract tokens or crafting currency. This is analogous to Tyrant Unleashed’s salvage points system, where destroying cards yielded a resource used for upgrades
. For example, a common card could be scrapped for 1 token, a rare for 5, etc., as Tyrant gave 1–80 salvage points by rarity
. Players could also earn tokens as loot from battles and quests – perhaps PvE missions grant a small amount of tokens on first completion or daily play, and PvP wins or ranking in tournaments yield token prizes. Tyrant Unleashed awarded gold (its basic currency) for defeating other players (e.g. 25–100 gold per win)
tyrant-unleashed.en.softonic.com
, and Hellsword can modernize that with tokens for PvP victories or climbing a leaderboard. Another source is guild activities: participating in guild wars, raids, or cooperative world events could grant tokens to the members, reflecting the group’s achievements. For instance, if your guild successfully defends its land in a siege event, all contributors get a token reward from a reward pool. These token “faucets” should encourage active and skillful play – completing missions, winning battles, contributing to guild goals – rather than passive or repetitive grinding. The game might implement daily quests or challenges (like Tyrant’s daily objectives that gave salvage points
) to give out tokens in a controlled manner each day. Importantly, all token issuance must be limited and predictable. Hellsword’s design will likely cap how many tokens a single player can earn per day from easy activities and rely on competitive or time-limited events for larger rewards. This prevents an infinite token drip that bots or farming “alt” accounts could exploit endlessly.
Token Uses – Utility and Sinks: The native token will have broad utility in Hellsword, serving as the currency and fuel of the game’s economy. Here are the key uses (and corresponding token sinks) that Hellsword envisions for its token:
-
Card Minting & Upgrades: Players can spend tokens to mint new cards or fuse/upgrade existing ones. For example, creating a higher-tier card might cost a combination of base cards plus tokens as a fee. Gods Unchained uses its $GODS token in the Forge for combining duplicate cards into NFT versions
. Hellsword similarly could require tokens to forge a digital collectible card, imbuing it with real value. Every time this happens, tokens get removed from circulation (burned or sent to a reward pool), acting as a sink.
-
Card Fusion: The fusion system (discussed more below) could charge tokens for each fusion attempt. This “fusion fee” is another sink that scales for higher-level fusions – e.g. fusing powerful cards might cost a significant token amount, ensuring only committed players do it. This not only balances the progression pace but also ties token demand to player progression. Evolution and “shining” mechanics in other games also use tokens; e.g. Gods Unchained plans an Evolution system to craft new NFTs using $GODS
. These are analogous to Hellsword’s fusion consuming tokens.
-
In-Game Purchases (Store): The token will be usable in the in-game store to buy card packs, cosmetics, or entry tickets. Hellsword can sell booster packs or loot chests for a token price. This provides a direct use for tokens for players who don’t want to wait to earn packs. In turn, a portion of tokens spent in the store can be burned or allocated to rewards. For instance, in Gods Unchained, 20% of all pack sales are paid in $GODS (or converted to it)
– Hellsword could similarly take a percentage of token spent on packs and permanently remove them from supply (or funnel them into prize pools or staking rewards for the community). Additionally, if the game has cosmetic skins or customizations (e.g. special card backs or avatar items), these could be sold for tokens, acting purely as token sinks (since cosmetics don’t affect gameplay, they’re great for absorbing excess tokens without impacting balance
).
-
Event Fees and Travel Tolls: To stimulate the economy, certain events might require a token entry fee. For example, a player-run tournament on a land tile might charge 10 tokens entry, which get pooled as prizes or burned as a fee. Likewise, if the world map has special regions or dungeons, there could be a toll (in tokens) to enter – especially if those areas yield high rewards. Another idea is that if players travel or teleport across the world, a small token cost could apply (creating a light sink tied to world navigation). These fees not only remove tokens but also regulate participation in lucrative content (preventing everyone from spamming the highest reward events without some cost). Of course, such fees should be tuned so they aren’t a barrier for normal play but do drain tokens from those engaging heavily in profitable activities.
-
Guild and Land Operations: Owning or upgrading land might require tokens – e.g. building a structure on your land tile could cost tokens (which are then burned or sink into the game). Guilds might spend tokens to declare war, launch a raid, or unlock guild perks. All these act as intentional token sinks to offset the tokens earned from those activities. For instance, if a guild war victory grants tokens, there might also be an upfront staking of tokens to participate (winners come out ahead, but some tokens sink in the process). This creates a faucet and sink loop that balances out.
Preventing Inflation & Exploitation: A major design goal is to balance token sources and sinks so the economy doesn’t inflate uncontrollably. If players earn too many tokens relative to how many are being spent or removed, the token’s value (and the in-game economy’s integrity) will drop
. Hellsword can take several measures to avoid this:
-
Strict Sinks vs. Faucets Balance: The game will monitor the rate of token generation vs. token spending. Ideally, over a long period, sinks equal or exceed faucets to prevent net inflation
. Early on, a game might allow some inflation to incentivize growth, but medium- to long-term, it must stabilize. Every feature that gives out tokens (quests, battles, etc.) should be matched with sinks (upgrades, fees, etc.) that draw tokens back out. The Immutable X team emphasizes designing varied sinks so that players always have desirable ways to spend tokens instead of cashing out
. Hellsword will offer multiple sink avenues: improving one’s deck (for competitive players), collecting cosmetics or land upgrades (for achievers), and participating in events. By ensuring “net outflow” can meet or exceed inflow, the game avoids the fate of games like Axie Infinity, where an oversupply of reward tokens led to a collapse in value
.
-
Token Sinks with Real Utility: It’s important that spending tokens feels worthwhile to players – sinks should provide fun or value, not just be a tax. Hellsword’s sinks like card fusion or unlocking new content give players power or prestige in return for tokens, which encourages them to reinvest in the game rather than immediately sell rewards
. For example, if burning tokens to upgrade a card gives you a markedly stronger card or a rare effect, players will find that worthwhile. Similarly, cosmetic sinks appeal to player pride; some will gladly spend tokens to show off a unique card skin, effectively removing those tokens from circulation for purely aesthetic reasons
. A diversity of sinks (power progression, cosmetics, guild contributions, etc.) ensures every player archetype has a reason to spend tokens, not hoard them. This also fights off speculative “farm and dump” behavior, because the game continuously offers reasons to use tokens in-game (decreasing the incentive to extract them for profit).
-
Untradeable or Off-Chain Resources: One clever anti-inflation design is to introduce an off-chain currency or resource for certain rewards, thereby controlling external token farming. Immutable X’s “hybrid economy” approach with Gods Unchained is a prime example: players earn Flux (an off-chain, non-tradeable resource) from playing, which is used (along with tokens) to fuse cards into NFTs
. Flux can’t be sold to outsiders, so bots or non-players have no incentive to grind it; its only purpose is to encourage more play (since it must be used in-game). Hellsword could adopt a similar model: basic gameplay could yield a soft currency or points (like Tyrant’s gold or salvage points) which can’t leave the game economy directly. These points might be used to buy packs or minor items, while the blockchain token is reserved for more pivotal uses and trading. By keeping some rewards off-chain or non-transferable, the game aligns incentives: players play to improve their account (through untradeable resources) and only tokenize value when they mean to trade or invest in high-level upgrades. This approach greatly limits exploitative farming because external profiteers can’t easily convert all in-game rewards to cash – only those who engage deeply (and likely spend tokens for fusions or minting) bring assets to the marketplace.
-
Burning Mechanisms and Buybacks: Hellsword may implement explicit burning of tokens to control supply. For instance, a percentage of every marketplace sale or crafting fee could be automatically burned (permanently removed). Burning creates deflationary pressure
that can counteract inflation from rewards. Some games also use buyback-and-burn (using revenue to buy tokens from the market and burn them), though in a private economy Hellsword might instead directly tune issuance. Additionally, the game could have periodic token sinks events – e.g. a world boss that requires donating tokens to participate, with excess tokens simply sunk as part of the event cost. The key is to actively manage the token supply via sinks whenever metrics show an oversupply.
-
Anti-Bot and Exploit Measures: Preventing exploitative farming isn’t just economic design; it’s also technical. Hellsword will need robust anti-bot systems so that token faucets reward real players, not automated scripts. (We discuss anti-bot measures more in Section 7.) By keeping bots out, the token distribution stays fair and can be calibrated to human play patterns. Also, no infinite loops should exist where a player could generate tokens or resources without end. Every crafting or trading action should have net costs. For example, if Hellsword allows converting tokens to some resource and back, it must ensure you lose a bit in the round trip (via fees or rates) to prevent abuse. Similarly, arbitrage between off-chain and on-chain currencies must be closed or managed by the game so players can’t endlessly print value. Essentially, the economy will be monitored and tweaked in live ops – if an unforeseen exploit appears (say a combo of game mechanics that lets players farm tokens too quickly), the developers can patch the mechanics or adjust rewards, thanks to the not-fully-decentralized approach. This active management, combined with the intentional design of sinks vs. faucets, will help keep Hellsword’s token economy stable, avoiding hyperinflation where tokens become “just numbers” with no real worth
.
By implementing these strategies, Hellsword aims to create a vibrant token economy that rewards players for their time and skill without spiraling out of control. The token will be deeply woven into the game’s progression (encouraging engagement) while careful sink mechanisms and economic levers ensure long-term sustainability. In summary, players will earn tokens through gameplay accomplishments and spend them on valuable in-game advancements, with the system continually balanced so that the token retains value and utility over time rather than being inflated away.
Example of a game token’s utility design. In Ember Sword (another Web3 game), the $EMBER token is used for buying in-game items, merging/upgrading collectibles, and is earned as rewards by land owners
. Hellsword’s token would similarly have multiple uses – fueling the economy while providing value to active players.
Card Minting, Fusion & Power Scaling
One of Hellsword’s most exciting features is its card fusion and minting system, which allows players to upgrade and combine cards to create more powerful ones. This system must be carefully balanced to ensure progression is satisfying but not infinite, and that higher-level cards come at exponentially increasing cost (preventing easy power creep). Here we explore how card minting/fusion might work, how costs can scale up, and how the private blockchain ties into this system.
Fusion Mechanics and Costs: Hellsword draws inspiration from games like War Metal Tyrant in designing fusion. In Tyrant Unleashed, players could upgrade cards to higher levels by spending salvage points, and then fuse fully-upgraded cards to obtain an even stronger card
. For example, in Tyrant a common card could be leveled up to 3 using salvage, a rare to 4, etc., and certain max-level cards could then be fused into a new card. Two base cards made a “dual”, and two duals could fuse into a “quad” – meaning you ultimately needed 4 base copies (all fully upgraded) to achieve the highest form
. This is a form of exponential resource scaling: each step up required significantly more input cards and resources than the previous step. Hellsword will employ a similar philosophy. To fuse cards in Hellsword, a player might need multiple copies of the prerequisite card(s) plus an increasing amount of tokens or other resources at each fusion tier. For instance, fusing two Level 3 cards might yield a Level 4 card at the cost of, say, 100 tokens; fusing two Level 4s (which themselves each consumed cards and tokens to create) might cost 500 tokens to get a Level 5, and so on. By the time you’re attempting to create a top-tier card, you may need to burn dozens of base cards and a very large token sum. This ensures that high-powered cards remain appropriately rare – the cost grows faster than the power, so only a small fraction of players will max out a card, and they’ll have invested significant effort/resources to do so.
To illustrate scaling, consider a hypothetical fusion ladder: Combining 4 Common cards could create 1 Uncommon; 4 Uncommons fuse into 1 Rare; 4 Rares fuse into 1 Epic. This is exactly the model some NFT games use for collectibles. In fact, Ember Sword’s merging system requires finding 4 of a cosmetic item to merge into the next rarity
. Each merge burns the inputs, so to get one Epic, you’d have destroyed 4 Rares (which each cost 4 Uncommons, which each cost 4 Commons) – a total of 64 Commons went in to yield 1 Epic. Hellsword’s card fusion could be tuned similarly (perhaps not always in powers of 4, but the principle of rapidly increasing requirements holds). Tyrant Unleashed’s upgrade costs in salvage points were another example: leveling a card from 1→2 cost 5 SP, but going 5→6 cost 150 SP
– a 30x increase for later levels. This kind of exponential curve prevents cheap maxing out.
No Infinite Progression Loops: It’s crucial that Hellsword’s fusion system has an endpoint or diminishing returns to avoid an endless grind that breaks balance. Many card games cap the level or rarity a card can reach. Tyrant, for instance, limited commons to level 3 and rares to level 4
; you couldn’t infinitely level a common to beat a legendary, there were natural stops. Hellsword will likely impose a max fusion level (e.g. a card can only be fused up to a certain tier of power). This means there is a strongest version of any given card, and you cannot fuse infinitely. Even if theoretically you could keep fusing, the exponential cost would become impractical beyond a point – but a hard cap is easier to communicate and balance. By ensuring each fusion consumes the input cards irreversibly (burning them on chain) and not providing a way to “un-fuse” or break them back down
, the game avoids any recycling exploit. In other words, once cards are fused or used as material, they’re gone (just as Tyrant did: “fusing cards… removes them from your inventory and gives you new cards… You cannot unfuse a card to retrieve parts”
). This one-way consumption guarantees there’s no loop where someone could fuse, get a stronger card, then maybe dismantle it for more resources than they started – that should never be allowed. Every transformation should result in a net loss of total cards and/or currency in the game (while increasing an individual card’s power). This controlled contraction of supply at high levels keeps the ecosystem in check.
Power Scaling and Balance: As cards are fused to higher levels or rarities, their power (stats, abilities) will increase – but likely in a sub-linear way relative to cost. The game design should ensure diminishing returns on investment, to avoid making low-level content trivial or high-level players unbeatable. For example, each fusion might grant a card +10% to its stats or an extra ability, but if the cost doubled or quadrupled, the efficiency drops. This was seen in War Metal/Tyrant: a fully fused “quad” card was very strong but you needed four cards to make it, so a player with a single quad wasn’t invincible against someone with four good singles; it was an edge, not a god-mode. Hellsword can adopt a similar stance: fused cards are definitely stronger and give an advantage, but not an insurmountable one – and they’re much harder to obtain than single cards. Also, rarity-based limits can help here: maybe only cards of a certain rarity can be fused to the next tier, etc., which prevents, say, an infinite common card from outclassing a legendary that has a fixed high power. The exact numbers would be tuned in testing, but the goal is a balanced metagame where strategy and deck composition still matter more than simply maxing a single card.
Trait Inheritance in Fusion: One intriguing aspect of Hellsword’s fusion system is how the resulting card’s traits and abilities are determined. There are a couple of approaches. One is deterministic fusion recipes: certain combinations of cards yield a specific new card with predefined traits. This is how Tyrant Unleashed handled fusion – specific cards fused together to create known outcomes (often a named card unique to that fusion)
. The advantage of this approach is predictability and balance; the designers can hand-craft the fused cards to ensure they’re not overpowered. Players also can work toward a clear goal (“if I fuse Card A + Card B, I get Card C”). The other approach is a more dynamic, gene-like inheritance: the fused card could inherit abilities or stats from its parent cards in some combination, potentially with a bit of randomness. This is analogous to breeding systems like in Axie Infinity or CryptoKitties. For example, Axie offspring have a chance to inherit each trait from either parent or even a recessive gene
. In Hellsword, that could mean if you fuse two cards, the new card might take one ability from Card1, one from Card2, and maybe gain a new “fusion bonus” ability. This system adds variety and personalization – players could experiment with fusing different pairs to try for synergistic outcomes. However, it’s harder to balance and could result in unexpected powerful combos. The developers would need to carefully restrict which cards can fuse or which abilities can combine. Perhaps Hellsword will meet in the middle: within a certain family of cards or faction, fusion results are predictable, but there is some room for player choice (e.g. choosing which “skill slot” gets passed on). Regardless of the method, all fused cards should be distinctly marked and recorded on the blockchain with their “heritage.” The private chain can store metadata about a card’s fusion history or parent IDs. This not only is fun for collectors (provenance of a powerful card) but can help in debugging or rebalancing if a certain fusion path proves problematic (developers could trace how a card was made).
Example – Fusion Cost Calculation: To demonstrate how costs might scale, imagine the following simplified scheme for Hellsword: To mint a new base card (perhaps by crafting instead of opening a pack) costs 10 tokens. To fuse two base cards into a Level 2 card costs an additional 20 tokens (so effectively 2 cards + 20 tokens yield a card that’s ~1.5x as strong). To fuse two Level 2 cards into Level 3 might cost 50 tokens. Two Level 3s to Level 4 costs 125 tokens. And two Level 4s to max Level 5 costs 300 tokens. Meanwhile, each fusion also required those cards to be fully upgraded (which in itself took tokens or salvage to do). You can see this is rapidly escalating: in total, going from two base cards to one Level 5 might consume on the order of 8 base cards and ~500+ tokens cumulatively. The exact numbers here are illustrative, but this structure ensures no cheap path to the top. The game could publish a formula or table for fusion costs. Commonly it might be something like: TokenCost_next = TokenCost_current * 2 + K (an exponential curve) or even factorial growth in terms of card copies needed. The important part is the fuse cost is always more than the sum of its parts’ costs, preventing any profit by breaking down higher cards. If the game allows dismantling a high-level card, it would certainly yield far less than what it cost to create, making sure there’s no loop of fusing and breaking to farm tokens.
Blockchain Integration: The private blockchain will play a pivotal role in the fusion and minting system. Every time a card is minted or fused, a transaction will record it on-chain, providing an immutable log of card creation. For example, a fusion transaction might list the IDs of the two source cards and the ID of the new resulting card, while marking the source cards as burned. This creates a visible lineage. If a future player wonders why a particular card is so strong, they could (in theory) look up its token on the chain and see “Oh, it was created by fusing card X and Y a month ago,” and maybe even trace those back to their origins. Besides transparency, the blockchain enforcement adds security: only the fusion contract (or authorized game logic) can mint the higher-tier card when appropriate inputs are provided, so players cannot cheat the system. Also, Hellsword could limit fusion attempts via the blockchain (for instance, a card token’s metadata might include a flag if it’s already been fused or its level, etc., so the contract knows it cannot fuse a card beyond the allowed cap). All these rules would be coded and executed in the private chain environment, adding a programmable guarantee on top of game UI checks.
Finally, progression pacing can be monitored via on-chain data. The devs can analyze how many players are reaching each fusion tier by reading the blockchain records, and adjust token costs or drop rates accordingly in updates. This is another advantage of their approach – they have all the data on an accessible ledger (even if private), which aids in agile balancing.
In summary, Hellsword’s card minting and fusion system will encourage players to invest and combine their assets for greater power, but with an ever-increasing cost curve and eventual limits. It will use proven design patterns from prior card games (like requiring multiple copies and resource sinks) to avoid infinite power escalation. The private blockchain will act as the arbiter and historian of these fusions, making sure every super-card in circulation is legitimately earned and accounted for. This creates a fair, competitive environment where dedicated players can work towards stronger cards without the game devolving into an arms race that breaks balance or an exploitative loop.
Fusion concept illustration. Web3 games often require combining multiple lower-tier items to create a higher-tier one. In this example (“Power of the Merge” from Ember Sword’s economy), players must find 4 Common skins to merge into 1 Uncommon, and so on
. All inputs are burned each time
, ensuring scarcity. Hellsword’s card fusion will follow a similar exponential model, requiring significant sacrifice to obtain the most powerful cards.
Web3 Technology Stack & Infrastructure
Building Hellsword as a Web3-enabled game means integrating blockchain components with traditional game architecture. The goal is to deliver a seamless experience where players may not even realize blockchain is under the hood (aside from the benefits it brings). In this section, we discuss the likely tech stack for Hellsword’s blockchain integration, including front-end and back-end architecture, the use of Web3 services vs. in-house solutions, security considerations, and how to achieve gas-less transactions for players.
Architecture Overview: Hellsword will have a typical online game architecture with a game client (possibly a PC client or web client in Unity/Unreal) and game servers for core logic, plus the blockchain network running in parallel. The game client will handle rendering the voxel world, the card game battles, UI for inventory, etc. When the player performs an action that affects ownership or trades – say, fusing a card or transferring an item – the client will communicate with the game backend which then interfaces with the blockchain. One likely design is that the game backend acts as a middleware between players and the private blockchain. This is for both convenience and security. The backend can bundle and validate player actions, then submit transactions to the blockchain on the player’s behalf. For example, if you click “Fuse cards” in the UI, the client sends that request to a game server API. The server will check you indeed have the required cards and resources (also checking the on-chain state), then it will call the blockchain node (or smart contract) to execute the fusion. Once the blockchain confirms the transaction, the server updates the game state and notifies the client that the new fused card is now in your inventory. All this can happen in seconds and can be made nearly invisible to the user.
Because Hellsword’s blockchain is private/permissioned, the game servers and possibly some trusted community nodes will be the only ones running the chain’s nodes. The front-end likely won’t talk directly to the blockchain (unlike purely decentralized DApps where the client might interact with Ethereum via web3 libraries). Instead, the player authentication and accounts might be managed by the game – potentially with each player having an associated wallet address managed by the game. Some Web3 games auto-generate a wallet for users upon signup (e.g. Immutable X’s Passport creates a wallet behind the scenes for new players). Hellsword could assign each user a private key (secured by the game) that controls their assets on the private chain. This way, users don’t need to handle wallet setup or seed phrases if they don’t want to; it feels like a regular game account. Advanced users might be given the option to link an external wallet if at some point assets can be withdrawn to a public network, but day-to-day the custodial model can simplify UX greatly.
Web3 Services vs In-House: The development team has a choice to build everything from scratch or leverage existing Web3 infrastructure services. Using third-party services can speed up development and provide reliable integrations. For example, Moralis offers a complete Web3 backend platform – it has user authentication linked to crypto wallets, real-time database for NFT ownership, and even Unity SDKs for game integration. A Unity game could use Moralis to quickly query which NFTs (cards) a player owns, or to trigger cloud code when a blockchain event occurs. Similarly, The Graph is an indexing protocol that can be invaluable if Hellsword’s chain is EVM-compatible. The Graph allows developers to write subgraphs (GraphQL APIs) that index on-chain data like all cards, all transactions, etc., making it easy to query complex data (e.g. “give me all cards owned by player X with rarity > 3”). In a custom private chain, the team might run their own instance of The Graph or similar indexing service to achieve fast lookups. Another service, Alchemy (or Infura), typically provides API access to Ethereum nodes; in Hellsword’s case, if they used a sidechain or if they expose their private chain via standard Ethereum JSON-RPC, they could use such services for easy connectivity and analytics. However, since the blockchain is private, they might simply run their own nodes and expose an API to the game servers – essentially doing what Infura/Alchemy do, but internally.
Alternatively, the team may opt for a more in-house solution, especially given the private nature of the blockchain. They could develop custom microservices: one service listening to blockchain events and updating a centralized database for the game, another handling transaction submissions and queueing, etc. Frameworks like Hyperledger Fabric or Parity Substrate could be used to build the private chain with bespoke logic. It’s also possible they use an existing sidechain tech but in a permissioned way (for instance, an Avalanche subnet or a Cosmos SDK chain configured for Hellsword). These give ready-made blockchain functionality but allow it to be run privately. The downside of doing everything custom is more maintenance and ensuring all these pieces work together. Tools like Moralis or Sequence (by Horizon) are specifically made to ease Web3 game development – for example, Sequence provides a smart wallet system that can enable gasless transactions and plugin to Unity easily
. Using such a stack can reduce development friction.
Security Considerations: Integrating blockchain introduces new vectors for exploits, so Hellsword must be built with security at its core. One major area is asset security and duplication prevention. The smart contract or chain logic that manages cards and tokens must be airtight: only authorized actions should create or destroy assets. For instance, the card mint/fusion contract should only allow the game’s trusted authority key (or the defined fusion mechanism) to mint new cards, and it should require burning the requisite components. This prevents a malicious actor from calling a mint function directly to create items for themselves. In a public blockchain game, contracts are often audited heavily because any bug can be exploited by users directly. In Hellsword’s private chain, the risk of external attacks is lower (since outsiders don’t have direct access), but insider or compromised server risks remain. The game should enforce permission layers – e.g., even the devs should mint new cards only through a controlled process (like releasing new card packs via a contract), to avoid any perception of item duplication or favoritism. The blockchain’s immutability helps here: any unauthorized mint would be logged and could be reverted if detected quickly (since the devs control the chain, they could theoretically rollback in a disaster scenario, though that’s a last resort).
Another security aspect is trading and marketplace safety. If players can trade assets, Hellsword should use atomic, trustless transactions so that trades either fully happen or not at all (no half-taking someone’s tokens without giving the card). A typical solution is a smart contract escrow for the marketplace: when a player lists a card for sale, the contract escrows the card; when a buyer purchases, the token payment and card transfer execute together via the contract. This prevents scams that were common in old games (like one player not delivering an item after payment). The private chain contracts can ensure no item duping or double-spending – once a card is listed or being traded, it can’t be simultaneously sold elsewhere. Also, if the game allows user-to-user gifting or direct trades, they must include checks to prevent exploits like “trade flooding” or denial of service on the trade system.
Preventing Exploits: Hellsword’s code (both game logic and smart contracts) should be audited and tested for known vulnerabilities. This includes things like overflow/underflow in token calculations, ensuring random number generation for any loot or outcomes is not predictable or manipulable, and guarding against re-entrancy if they use an Ethereum-like contract (where a contract call could recursively call back and mess up balances – a common Ethereum pitfall). Given the private chain context, many public attack vectors are closed, but it’s still wise to follow best practices. Additionally, since the game servers interface with the blockchain, secure networking and authentication is crucial. Only the game servers should be able to send certain transactions on behalf of players, and those servers need proper authentication to the blockchain nodes. If an attacker somehow gained access to the transaction API with high privileges, they could issue illicit transfers. Using secure keys, encryption, and limiting access on the network level (maybe the blockchain nodes only accept connections from the game backend’s IPs) will mitigate this.
Another angle: scaling and denial of service. The infrastructure must handle potentially thousands of blockchain transactions (for trades, fusions, rewards) per hour without lag. Private chains can be tuned for higher TPS, but the backend should have queuing and fallback. Also, if malicious actors spam actions (even legitimate game actions) to overload the system, the game should have rate limits or require a minimal in-game cost for actions to throttle spam. Because gas fees are absent, spam could be theoretically free – so Hellsword might introduce some internal cooldowns or minor fees for creating market listings, etc., to prevent abuse.
Finally, player account security: If players control their own keys (even via the game’s wallet), account hacks could lead to asset theft. Hellsword can mitigate this by providing account recovery (since it’s not a fully decentralized situation) and by monitoring unusual transactions. If a brand-new account suddenly tries to transfer all assets out, maybe flag for review. Since the devs have oversight, they could even implement a rule that very high-value trades or transfers require a manual confirmation or a short timelock – giving time to react if a hacker is emptying accounts. This is a delicate balance between decentralization and protecting players, but given Hellsword’s partial centralization, players might appreciate some protection measures.
Gas-less Transactions: One of the biggest user-experience advantages of Hellsword’s approach is that transactions can be gas-free or “feeless” for players. Traditional blockchains like Ethereum require users to pay gas fees in crypto to do anything – a major hurdle for mainstream gamers. Hellsword avoids this by using a private chain with either negligible gas or by abstracting gas away from the user. In a private chain, the concept of gas can be turned off or set to a nearly zero cost since the devs aren’t trying to incentivize public miners. Every action can be processed by the game’s own nodes without charging a fee (or the fee can be an internal mechanism not exposed to players). This means players won’t need to hold any cryptocurrency just to play or transact; they can focus on gameplay.
Even if Hellsword were on a sidechain that technically has transaction fees, the game could implement a meta-transaction system to cover costs. Meta-transactions allow a user to sign a transaction and have a relayer service (run by the game) submit it to the blockchain, paying the gas for the user
. The game could fund these gas payments from its treasury. Since sidechain fees are low (Polygon or similar have fractions of a cent fees), this is economically feasible, especially if most heavy interactions are on the internal chain. Many Web3 games and marketplaces now offer “gasless” trades using this method – the user just signs a message, and a backend handles the actual blockchain tx with its own gas account
. For example, Immutable X’s marketplace achieves gas-free trading by batching transactions and paying for them in aggregate; players just see instant trades with no Metamask prompts
.
Because Hellsword is not fully decentralized, it can even go a step further and not require any signature from the user for routine actions, treating them like typical game server actions. Essentially, the game can internally authenticate the player (username/password or token) and know that “Player123 wants to trade CardA to Player456 for X tokens” – the server then uses its authority to execute that on-chain. This is custodial signing and might be acceptable since the trust is on the game operator. If more transparency is desired, the game could still have users cryptographically sign actions (especially if there’s a future plan to connect to public wallets), but it can be built into the client without burden. For instance, the game might generate an Ed25519 key for the player and use it to sign requests that the private chain recognizes for that address – all behind the scenes after initial account setup.
In any case, from the player’s perspective, all transactions will be near-instant and free. There will be no “Confirm Metamask” pop-ups with gas fees to approve, which often break immersion. If a trade or fusion takes a second or two to finalize, the UI can just show a quick loading spinner or progress bar in-game (“Fusing cards…”) and then result. Because the blockchain is private, block times can be very short (maybe 1-second blocks or even faster if using a high-throughput consensus). This ensures that blockchain updates are as real-time as a normal database. In effect, Hellsword’s blockchain will behave like a high-performance distributed game database rather than a public slow ledger. This is critical for user adoption: one of Web3 gaming’s challenges has been the clunky wallet and fee experience
, and Hellsword aims to eliminate that friction.
Web3 Tech Examples: The game could incorporate proven technologies from the Web3 space to achieve these goals. We mentioned Moralis for backend, The Graph for indexing. Additionally, for wallets, projects like Web3Auth or Fortmatic/Magic allow password or social login based wallet creation, which could be integrated if at any point players are interacting with a blockchain interface. If Hellsword wanted to open up to external blockchain connectivity, these could be deployed so players can log in with email and still have a real crypto wallet linked. However, given the private nature, it’s more likely the game will do a contained system at first.
On the client side, if using Unity, there are SDKs provided by companies like ChainSafe (their SDK integrates meta-transactions and wallet connect)
, and Immutable also has a Unity SDK for their APIs. These tools can shorten development time and provide battle-tested code for interacting with NFTs and tokens. On the server side, if implementing an EVM-based chain, the team could use libraries like web3.js or ethers.js in their backend code (Node.js or C# or whatever environment) to format and send transactions to their private chain. They might also run a block explorer internally (like an Etherscan instance or Blockscout) so that devs and perhaps players can see a visual representation of the ledger for transparency.
Summing Up: The Hellsword tech stack likely consists of a game server cluster (for gameplay logic, matchmaking, world state), a set of private blockchain nodes (maintaining the ledger of assets and transactions), and integration middleware (services or libraries to connect the two). Web3 services like Moralis or custom GraphQL endpoints will make querying on-chain state fast for the game (so, for example, when you open your collection, the game can quickly retrieve all your card tokens from the chain or cache). Security will be enforced at both the contract level (to prevent in-game economic exploits) and the server level (to prevent cheating and protect user data). Gasless design ensures the user experience is just like a normal free-to-play game – you click and things happen, no crypto hassle. By combining these elements, Hellsword can leverage blockchain for ownership and economy while maintaining the polished feel of a modern online game, which is exactly the aim of many new Web3 gaming architectures
.
Game Mechanics Inspired by War Metal/Tyrant
Hellsword’s core gameplay is influenced by classic digital CCGs like War Metal: Tyrant (and its successor Tyrant Unleashed). Understanding those mechanics gives a blueprint for deckbuilding, progression, and competitive play, which Hellsword will both emulate and evolve with modern twists. Let’s break down key mechanics from War Metal/Tyrant and how Hellsword plans to enhance them using Web3 and sandbox world features.
Deckbuilding & Strategy: In War Metal Tyrant, players built small decks (in Tyrant Unleashed it was 10 cards plus a Commander card)
and battles were automated turn-based affairs. There were distinct card types – Commanders (one per deck, with leadership effects), Assault units (creatures that attack), and Structures (support cards that provide buffs or defense)
. Additionally, cards belonged to factions (Imperial, Raider, Bloodthirsty, Xeno, Righteous in Tyrant) each with a theme – e.g. Imperials had high armor, Raiders were aggressive, etc.
. This encouraged strategic deckbuilding: you could mix factions or stick to one for synergy, and many card abilities specifically interacted with certain factions
. Tyrant’s gameplay was somewhat simplified (cards acted automatically and targets were often random
), meaning strategy was mainly in deck construction rather than tactical in-battle decisions. Hellsword will likely adopt a similar quick-play, deck-focused combat system. Fast matches keep players engaged and willing to play many battles (important for daily active use). The deck size might be small (e.g. 15 cards plus a hero) to ensure battles resolve quickly.
However, Hellsword can introduce more player agency and depth compared to Tyrant’s fully automated battles. For instance, it might allow players to position cards on a grid or choose targets for special abilities, adding a tactical layer without slowing the pace too much. The voxel-based world could even allow battles to play out on the terrain (imagine your cards represented as voxel units fighting on a small battlefield). Still, the core will be collecting and comboing cards with different abilities. Faction mechanics could return in Hellsword – perhaps guilds or “elemental affinities” act like factions, where cards from the same affinity buff each other. Given the sandbox world, one could tie factions to regions (cards found in the Volcanic region have the Fire faction, etc.). This provides an additional progression path: players might try to collect strong cards from all factions or specialize in one for a themed deck.
One advantage of Web3 is that each card is a unique asset; Hellsword could track detailed stats per card (wins, kills, etc.) and even allow cards to “level up” or gain achievements as they’re used – something Tyrant didn’t have (cards were static except for fusing). This adds attachment to your specific NFT cards. Strategy-wise, the team will study Tyrant’s balance (it had dozens of abilities like Counter, Strike, Enfeeble etc.)
and likely bring many of those concepts in. They will need to be mindful of power creep – Tyrant suffered later from newer cards being strictly better, pushing older cards out. With Hellsword’s fusion system, they have a way to continually make cards relevant (combine old ones to make new ones). Also, because Hellsword is not purely a card game but set in a sandbox world, they could incorporate terrain or environmental effects in battles (e.g. if a battle takes place in a swamp tile, maybe certain card types get bonuses). This would be a new strategic consideration beyond Tyrant’s scope.
Progression & PvE: War Metal Tyrant offered a lengthy campaign of missions and boss fights. Tyrant Unleashed had 100+ missions that you could replay up to 10 times for extra rewards
. It also had special Mutant missions for high-level challenge
. Hellsword will definitely have a PvE component – a series of quests or missions that players can undertake either solo or co-op. These missions introduce the story and new card rewards over time. Completing missions might unlock new card packs or give specific card rewards (Tyrant often gave a fixed card for beating a certain boss). Because Hellsword has the voxel world, progression could be tied to exploring the map: as you venture into new territories, you encounter PvE challenges (bandit camps, dungeons) that correspond to missions. This feels more immersive than a static menu of missions. Each region’s missions could yield cards related to that region’s theme, encouraging exploration.
To prevent dull grinding and “infinite loot” from missions, Hellsword can adopt Tyrant’s approach of capping special rewards after X completions
. For example, the first time you beat a quest you get a unique card or token reward, up to a certain number of times, then further repeats only give basic rewards. This ensures progression but not farming exploits. The power growth in PvE should be paced such that players need to upgrade decks (through fusion or acquiring better cards) to tackle later content, but not so steep that it hits a paywall. Tyrant eventually introduced extremely tough missions that practically required event cards or heavy upgrades. Hellsword should provide alternate routes (e.g. grouping with other players to beat a tough boss, or using strategic terrain advantage).
Guild Wars & Cooperative Play: Tyrant Unleashed had a strong guild component. It featured Raids – guilds cooperatively fought an AI raid boss by each member doing battles to cumulatively deal damage
. If they succeeded, they could repeat at higher difficulty for better rewards, and the goal was to defeat the raid as many times as possible in the event window
. It also had Brawls (PvP tournaments) and Guild Wars – where guilds faced off in structured matches with special rules (like each guild had defensive structures to destroy)
. These social competitive modes greatly increase engagement and retention, as players work together and against each other in teams.
Hellsword is poised to expand on this with its world map. Guilds (or alliances) could occupy regions on the world tiles and have to defend them during scheduled war events. A guild war in Hellsword might play out as follows: during a war phase, guild members travel on the world map to an enemy guild’s territory and initiate battles (using their decks) against the enemy’s defenses or against enemy players in real-time. The result of battles could chip away at a territory’s control points. This is analogous to Tyrant’s guild war where attacking either the enemy’s structures or core earned points
. The twist is that in Hellsword, these battles happen on the actual world tile, which could be configured by the defender – perhaps guild-owned structures on the land provide buffs (just like Tyrant’s guild support structures)
. The guild war might last a fixed time (say a weekend), and whichever guild accumulates more points or destroys the opponent’s core “wins” that war, gaining rewards and perhaps territory.
Competitive PvP: Aside from guild-based play, Hellsword will certainly have ranked PvP battles or arena for individual players. Tyrant had a Battle mode where you could fight other players’ decks chosen from a matchmaking list to increase your rating and earn extra gold
. Hellsword can implement a matchmaking system (likely ELO-based or ranking tiers) for duels against other players. Because it’s digital, asynchronous battles are possible (fighting against someone’s AI-controlled deck), but synchronous live battles would be more engaging if feasible. Rewards for PvP could include tokens, leaderboard titles, or special cards. Tyrant’s Brawl events rewarded players at the end based on ranking tier
– Hellsword could run seasonal tournaments or leagues with NFT trophy rewards or token prizes. The important improvement Web3 offers here is true ownership of competitive rewards. If you earn a champion card or trophy NFT from a season, you actually own it and could trade it if you want. This adds stakes and excitement to competitive play.
Economy & Monetization (Legacy vs Modern): War Metal Tyrant was a free-to-play game monetized by selling card packs (boosters) and premium currency ( Warbonds). Players could grind for gold (free currency) to buy basic packs, but the best cards often came from premium packs or as rewards in limited events. This led to a bit of a pay-to-win scenario in late game, which some players resented
. Hellsword has an opportunity to realign monetization because of player trading and tokenization. Instead of only selling powerful cards directly, Hellsword’s devs might primarily sell card packs and cosmetics, and let the player-driven marketplace set the price of specific cards. This is healthier because any player can obtain any card via trading (not strictly behind a paywall loot box). The devs can still make money from pack sales (as in traditional CCGs) and maybe marketplace transaction fees. Also, Web3 enables peer-to-peer market: if you have a rare card you don’t need, you can sell it to another player for tokens – something not possible in Tyrant (there was no card trading there). This turns the in-game economy more into a real player economy, akin to physical card games where you can trade and sell cards.
To avoid pay-to-win, Hellsword could also ensure that skill and strategy can counter pure card power to some extent. For example, maybe deck-building limits (like only one high-level card per deck or a point-based system) prevent a whale from fielding all maxed cards at once. Additionally, matchmaking by power can help – players with beginner decks face each other, while those with extensively fused decks face similarly geared opponents.
Evolving Mechanics with Web3 & Sandbox Elements: With the addition of a voxel sandbox world and blockchain features, Hellsword can innovate on Tyrant’s foundation. One big evolution is the concept of world exploration and land ownership (covered in the next section). In Tyrant, all battles were menu-based. In Hellsword, the world map itself becomes a strategic board. Players could move their avatar or army across the map to find opponents or events, making the game world feel alive. Owning land (tiles) gives new dimensions: you might build a deck specifically to defend your land (maybe your land has a “home turf” bonus when you fight on it). Guilds might form based on territories (like factions) rather than arbitrary choice. This open-world approach combined with card battles is quite novel.
Web3 tech also allows Hellsword to consider player-driven events. For example, a guild could host a tournament on their land and offer an NFT card as a prize; the blockchain can handle entry fees and prize distribution automatically via smart contracts (no risk of the host reneging). Tyrant’s events were all developer-run, but Hellsword could see community-run events thanks to trustless systems. A guild that controls a region could effectively become a mini “arena” operator, taking a cut of wagers or fees (with contracts ensuring fairness). This decentralization of events is a fresh layer Tyrant never had.
Another modern improvement is governance and voting. Tyrant’s community had no direct say in game changes, but Hellsword could use its token for governance votes on certain features or balancing decisions, giving players a voice. Many Web3 games implement governance tokens for community-driven decisions. While core balancing might remain with devs, less critical things (like which new card art to introduce, or what kind of event players want next) could be polled through token-weighted votes.
Lessons from Past Games: Past CCGs and Web3 games teach valuable lessons. Tyrant eventually shut down (servers closed in 2015) as the content cadence slowed and monetization peaked. A sustainable game today needs continuous updates, community engagement, and a fair economy. Web3 provides tools for community engagement (players are literally invested via asset ownership). On the flip side, some early NFT games showed that focusing too much on the crypto side can hurt gameplay. Hellsword is taking the approach of “gameplay first, blockchain under the hood”, which is informed by seeing other projects. The Blockchain Gaming Alliance notes poor gameplay is a big barrier in crypto games
. So Hellsword will ensure the card game mechanics stand on their own – meaning careful card design, interesting abilities, balanced factions, and fun progression. Then the blockchain features (trading, owning, earning) enhance that experience rather than replace it.
In conclusion, Hellsword will stand on the shoulders of War Metal/Tyrant by using a similar fast-paced card battle system, progression through missions and events, and guild-based competitions. It will modernize these mechanics by introducing player ownership (you truly own your cards and can trade them), a living world map for context, and blockchain-managed economy for transparency. Imagine War Metal Tyrant reborn in a Minecraft-like world where you can walk your hero to an enemy’s castle and initiate a card battle – that’s essentially what Hellsword aims to be. The familiar elements will attract fans of the old games, while the new features and Web3 integrations will provide a fresh, robust experience that addresses some of the shortcomings (lack of trading, pay-to-win concerns, static world) of its predecessors.
World Tiles as Ownable Lands
A distinguishing feature of Hellsword is its voxel-based world composed of tiles that players or guilds can own and develop. These world tiles introduce a layer of meta-gameplay: territorial control, base-building, and resource management, on top of the card battling. Let’s break down how world tiles function, what ownership means, and how they integrate into both gameplay and the economy.
Persistent Player-Controlled Lands: The game world is divided into discrete land tiles, each of which is a persistent area in the sandbox. “Persistent” means that any changes or structures on a tile remain over time and are visible to everyone, even when the owner is offline. If you, as a player, own a tile, you essentially have your own little slice of the game world – similar to owning land in The Sandbox or Decentraland, but with more direct game mechanics attached. You could build on it (perhaps designing a fortress, a dungeon, or a marketplace), and that build stays in the world. Other players can visit your tile, fight monsters or NPCs you’ve set up, or challenge your defenses if PvP is enabled there. In effect, each tile is like a customizable “home base” or level. This adds a Minecraft-like creative aspect: since it’s voxel-based, owners might be able to terraform the terrain or arrange voxel structures. At minimum, even if full voxel editing isn’t allowed for balance, owners will choose what type of facility or bonus their land provides (e.g. set it as a mine, or a training ground, etc.). These lands being player-controlled means the game world is not static; it evolves as players invest in and modify their lands – truly a player-driven world.
Building & Upgrading on Tiles: On their tile, an owner can likely build structures or upgrades that confer benefits. For example, you could build a Card Forge on your land where you (and maybe others) can mint or fuse cards at slightly better rates (this could be a gameplay benefit of owning land – access to special facilities). Or build defensive structures that come into play during territory PvP (turrets that activate during sieges, etc.). Upgrading a tile might increase its output or defenses. If a tile produces resources (say it has a Crystal Mine), upgrading that structure yields more crystals per day. This introduces a light RTS or management element: owners must gather or spend resources (likely tokens or materials) to improve their land. The voxel nature suggests one could also aesthetically build – perhaps arranging walls, traps, or artwork on their tile. Hellsword could incorporate blueprint-style building: e.g. place a castle here, a statue there, all made of voxels that you or your guild collected.
Building and upgrading will surely cost resources or tokens, making land a sink for the economy. For instance, leveling up your land’s castle to level 2 might cost 100 tokens and some rare loot. In return, the castle might increase the storage of resources or unlock new unit cards that spawn to help defend in sieges. Another example: as landowner, you could host an Arena on your tile by constructing it; upgrading the Arena could allow larger tournaments or higher-stakes battles to be hosted, from which you might earn a cut. The possibilities link very much with the Native Token – land upgrades are a major token sink and also a way to channel resources into something that generates gameplay value.
Hosting Events & Services: Because each tile is an instance in the world, owners can turn their land into a venue. This could mean hosting PvE events (maybe you create a dungeon on your land where other players can come fight monsters for rewards), or hosting PvP battles (like a duel arena or guild war battlefield). The owner might set rules or get rewards from these activities. For example, you own a tile at a key crossroads on the map; you decide to establish a toll gate or checkpoint. Whenever other players pass or use that route, perhaps they have to pay a small fee or fight an NPC guard you set. If fees are involved, those could partly go to you as the landowner, and partly be burned or allocated by the game (to avoid pure exploitation). In a more friendly scenario, maybe you build a Marketplace on your land – a place where players can come and trade with each other. If Hellsword allows decentralized marketplaces, land tiles could compete to be trade hubs by offering lower tax or special items. Ember Sword has a concept where landowners can host premium shops and get a share of the revenue from sales on their land
. Hellsword could implement something similar: if a player buys a card pack or item through an interface on your land, you get a small commission (encouraging owners to attract traffic).
Furthermore, guilds might use owned tiles to host guild-specific events – say your guild owns a cluster of tiles and declares that next Saturday a big siege battle or a boss spawn will happen there. They could advertise this and maybe charge admission or reward participants with tokens (coming from the guild’s coffers). This level of emergent gameplay turns Hellsword into not just dev-crafted content, but also player-crafted scenarios.
Ownership: Individual vs Guild: The question arises, who owns the tiles – individuals or guilds? Hellsword could allow both. Perhaps small common tiles are owned by individual players, while large strategic territories are owned by guilds collectively. One model: players own land NFTs (or equivalent) and can join them together to form guild territories if they align with other players. Another model: the game map has regions designated as “guild territories” that guilds fight over and control as a group (like castles in an MMO), separate from personal housing plots. It would make sense that early on, individual ownership is emphasized (to attract players to buy land, etc.), but later, guild ownership emerges naturally as players band together. If every tile is an NFT in a player’s wallet, a guild “controlling” it might simply mean that player pledged it to the guild’s cause. Alternatively, a guild itself could be an entity that holds the NFT (some games allow NFTs to be held by a guild treasury or a multi-sig wallet).
Benefits of Guild Control: If a guild controls many adjacent tiles, they could form a kingdom with collective benefits (like a resource bonus or defensive bonus). Guild-controlled lands might be required for high-level content like building a Wonder or hosting world bosses. However, outright transferring ownership in wars (like stealing someone’s NFT land) is tricky because it involves someone losing an asset they might have purchased. Many games avoid that by making the control separate from ownership. For example, you own a land NFT but if an enemy guild conquers it in a war, they don’t take the NFT from you; instead, they occupy it for a set time or siphon some resources from it as a penalty. The actual title could still remain with the owner. This respects the real-money value of land while still allowing warfare. Another approach: certain lands (maybe special “relic tiles”) are not bought but only earned through guild wars – those could change hands between guilds because they weren’t purchased with cash, they were won. Hellsword will have to decide how to balance persistent ownership vs. conquerable territory. A likely solution is a leasing or occupation system: If a guild wins a siege on a player’s land, that land might become “occupied” for a period, giving the victors some percentage of its resource production or a portion of fees, but the deed still resides with the original owner. The owner would then want to rally allies to liberate it. This creates conflict and drama without permanent loss of assets. It’s similar to how in EVE Online you can conquer a station but players don’t lose their ships inside, for instance – you just deny them usage until retaken.
Resource Generation & Economy Impact: World tiles can produce resources, which could be materials (like wood, stone, mana crystals) used in crafting cards or in upgrading things. They might also directly or indirectly generate tokens. For example, a land might produce “gold” which is an off-chain currency convertible to the token at some rate, or it might produce items that players sell for tokens. In any case, land is typically a faucet of some sort in the economy (one reason people invest in land NFTs is the expectation of yield). Ember Sword’s design gives landowners a share of certain revenues (a form of yield)
. Splinterlands land produces crafting resources that will be valuable to players crafting new cards. Hellsword could allow land to generate, say, Salvage Materials each day, which save players some token cost in upgrading cards.
We have to be careful: if land yields too much freely, it could imbalance the economy with inflation. The game likely limits resource output based on activity. For instance, your land might only produce a lot if players are actively doing things on it (like clearing dungeons or hosting battles). This ties resource generation to gameplay (Proof-of-Play, essentially) rather than passive income. That’s healthier as it incentivizes landowners to create content/events for others. If no one visits your land, maybe it yields very little. Some designs do this: e.g. reward pools distributed by engagement metrics. So a land’s token or resource output could be proportional to the number of battles fought on it, or the amount of commerce on it. This is hinted by the fact that Ember Sword’s land rewards are based on the active user base and player trading in that region
. Hellsword should ensure land output doesn’t become a zero-effort money printer; instead it becomes a platform that amplifies play (both for owner and visitors) and rewards accordingly.
From an economy standpoint, land creates another sink: owners will likely spend tokens to improve land to increase its outputs, balancing out the tokens those outputs generate. If land yields resources used to fuse cards, that indirectly fuels the play economy rather than flooding tokens directly. And if land yields tokens directly (maybe a small daily stipend), the game can balance it by having operating costs – e.g., perhaps land buildings consume some tokens for upkeep, or perhaps an algorithm like regenerative rewards that diminish if not collected (preventing stockpiling).
PvP Battles & Sieges: The inclusion of ownable land naturally leads to territorial PvP. We touched on guild wars for territory. This could manifest as scheduled Siege Events where one guild attacks another’s land tile. The gameplay in a siege might differ from a normal duel: defenders could have AI-controlled units (representing fortifications) or maybe the defending guild can tag-team using multiple decks to fend off a larger attacking force. For example, if a guild territory is under siege, several guild members might each have to be defeated for the attackers to fully conquer the tile. Attackers might need to win multiple battles, simulating breaching outer walls, then inner keep, etc. The voxel environment allows for a multi-stage battle (e.g., attackers first destroy outer defenses on the world map, then it triggers a card battle against the garrison’s decks).
Victory in these battles should confer meaningful rewards: possibly temporary control or plunder. If you win a siege, maybe for the next 24 hours your guild siphons 20% of that land’s resource production (as spoils of war) or you earn a one-time loot drop. The defending side, if they successfully repel, could earn tokens from a war chest staked by the attackers or given by the game to incentivize defense. This echoes how in Tyrant Unleashed’s guild wars, winning guilds got points and often reward cards at season’s end. Hellsword can use tokens and NFT rewards for guild conflict outcomes.
Ownable Land vs. Playable Map: Not every tile in the game may be ownable. Possibly only certain regions (like “frontier zones”) are up for ownership, whereas safe city hubs remain NPC-owned. This hybrid approach can ensure new players have safe zones and that the entire map isn’t monopolized early. Over time, if demand is high, the game can introduce new continents or expand the map, as some NFT games have multiple “land sales” phases (but careful to avoid oversupply that devalues existing land).
Guild vs Player Ownership Roles: We should clarify that while an individual might hold the title to a tile, effective control could be a team effort. A single player likely can’t defend their land alone against a large guild; they’d need allies. This might encourage landowners to either join a guild or hire mercenaries, etc. This social dynamic is compelling: landowners might strike alliances (“I’ll rent my tile to our guild armory in exchange for protection”). Mechanically, Hellsword could allow co-ownership or management rights – e.g., you can add guildmates as co-owners to help build and defend. This resembles how some games let you add friends to build on your land.
Influence on Token Economy: Land introduces additional token sinks and faucets. As a sink, players will spend tokens to buy land (if sold by the game initially) and to upgrade it. As a faucet, land can yield tokens or items convertible to tokens. The design should attempt to make land a net sink for most players except those who heavily invest in making it productive (so not everyone profits equally just by having land). If the game sells land for tokens, that’s a token sink (removing tokens from players in exchange for the NFT). If it sells for fiat/crypto outside the game, that doesn’t affect in-game token supply directly but does bring revenue. Many games opt to sell land for cryptocurrency upfront to fund development, but Hellsword could also allow obtaining land through gameplay (like winning a tournament gives you a land deed).
Ownable Land in Other Games: Drawing parallels, Ember Sword (another MMO) has 40k land plots in its first nation and offers community building and earning opportunities for landowners
. Splinterlands land expansion allows crafting unique items/spells that only land can produce, adding a whole new layer to the card game. Axie Infinity has Lunacia lands where players can farm resources and fight bosses. Hellsword, by combining land with a card battler, is a bit like mixing a strategy board game with a CCG. This is fairly novel and can attract players who enjoy both city-building and card battles.
In conclusion, world tiles as ownable lands turn Hellsword into a hybrid of card game and sandbox MMO. Players will not just be dueling, but also conquering territory, managing it, and socializing through it. A player might log in one day to fight some matches and improve their deck, and the next day rally their guild to defend their town from invaders. This interplay keeps the game engaging on multiple levels. The private blockchain will manage land ownership records (who owns what tile) – effectively each land could be an NFT token on the chain. It will also likely log changes like ownership transfers or major upgrades, providing an ownership history. Players can trust that their land can’t be arbitrarily taken or wiped by the devs because it’s recorded on the ledger (aside from the conquest mechanics which are part of gameplay rules). Owning a piece of Hellsword gives a sense of long-term investment and identity – your land might become known as a popular arena or a heavily fortified citadel in the community. By balancing ownership rights with competitive gameplay, Hellsword aims to create a dynamic world where lands rise and fall in influence but always drive the overall story and economy of the game forward.
Monetization & Marketplace
Hellsword intends to sustain itself financially while maintaining a fair and fun game environment. Monetization in a Web3 game like this comes from multiple streams: primary sales (like card packs, cosmetics, land sales), transaction fees, and potentially token value appreciation. At the same time, the design must prevent abuse (like botting or market manipulation) that could harm the economy or legitimate players. Here’s how Hellsword’s monetization and marketplace might be structured:
Trading Mechanics (Cards, Land, Tokens): One of the big advantages of blockchain integration is that players can trade their assets freely. Hellsword will likely have an in-game marketplace where players can list cards or even land tiles for sale to others. This would function similarly to an auction house in MMO games, but under the hood each trade is a blockchain transaction transferring the NFT (card or land) and the payment token. The marketplace should support listings in the native token (so a card might be listed for 1000 HELLS tokens, for example). Because the game is using a private blockchain, this marketplace can be completely integrated in the game UI with no need for external sites – a player opens the market screen, browses cards, and clicks buy, and the trade happens via the game’s backend handling the blockchain call.
To ensure safety and simplicity, Hellsword might implement a fixed-price listing system or a simple auction format (bids over time). Fixed-price is easier for users: sellers set a price, buyers pay it plus maybe a small transaction fee. Each trade could incur a market fee, say 5-10%, which goes to the game treasury or is burned. This is a common model in NFT marketplaces (e.g. OpenSea charges ~2.5%). In-game, it’s justified as a trading tax and is a key part of monetization – if the game economy is vibrant, a cut of peer-to-peer trades can be substantial revenue. Gods Unchained, for instance, swaps a portion of secondary sales into their token to feed the ecosystem
.
Since Hellsword’s assets aren’t on a public chain by default (assuming private chain), they might also provide a web marketplace interface for external trading if they ever allow it (like a web portal where you connect your game account to trade items, similar to how some games have both in-game and web-based market views). The design should avoid fragmenting liquidity; likely the in-game marketplace is the main hub.
NFT-Style Ownership without Full Decentralization: The prompt mentions “NFT-style ownership without full decentralization,” meaning Hellsword will give players true ownership records of their items (they can trade and sell them, and the game cannot arbitrarily delete them), but it might not allow all the freedoms of a fully decentralized NFT. For example, perhaps players cannot withdraw the NFT to Ethereum mainnet unless certain conditions are met, or maybe the NFT metadata is still controlled by the game (so the devs can update a card’s stats for balance – something a fully immutable NFT card wouldn’t allow). This approach is pragmatic: it uses blockchain to guarantee item scarcity and player rights, but retains the ability for the devs to manage the game.
Concretely, Hellsword could use soulbound or semi-fungible tokens for some assets that shouldn’t be traded (like achievement badges, etc.), and use NFTs for cards/land that can be traded. The private chain could enforce that some items are non-transferable. For those that are transferable, players will be able to sell them but likely only through the official channels. Unlike an Ethereum NFT that you could, say, send to a friend just by knowing their wallet address, Hellsword’s system might require trades to go through the marketplace or a gifting interface. This is partly to ensure safety and tax: the game might want to prevent off-market trades that avoid fees or allow scamming. However, since players do hold the keys (directly or via game custody), they in theory “could” transfer assets if they had raw access – but the game can restrict the UI and even the node access such that it’s non-trivial to do unsanctioned trades. In other words, the ownership is real, but the use of that ownership is kept within the game’s ecosystem for the sake of order. This isn’t very different from how some traditional games allow player trading via a secure trade window but would ban you if you tried to hack items into someone else’s account. The blockchain just adds assurance that the item isn’t duplicated or meddled with by the devs beyond authorized means.
Land Trading: Land tiles, if they are tokenized (which they likely are), can also be bought and sold. The marketplace would handle land NFTs as well, possibly in a dedicated section. Given land might be high-value, sales could be done via auctions. Hellsword might also allow rental of land: a landowner could rent out their tile to another player or guild for a period, using a smart contract that temporarily assigns control. This expands monetization – maybe the game takes a cut of rental fees too.
Native Token Trading: There will likely be an in-game currency exchange where players can trade the native token with each other or with the game. For instance, if a free player earns tokens through play and wants to cash out or trade for another asset, or conversely if someone wants to buy tokens to spend in-game, there needs to be a mechanism. Since the token is on a private chain, it might not immediately be on public exchanges. Hellsword could set up an exchange counter (possibly even decentralized, like an AMM pool on the private chain) where players trade tokens for a bridge asset or stablecoin. Or, if they use a sidechain approach, the token could also exist on Ethereum/Polygon for external liquidity. From a monetization perspective, the game might sell tokens or packs for fiat as well, essentially acting as the “house”.
However, allowing easy conversion of tokens to real money can encourage gold farming and botting, so Hellsword might initially keep token trading internal or limited. If tokens can be bought/sold, they will likely implement KYC for large transactions to satisfy regulations (especially since tokens start looking like securities or at least like a cash equivalent – a hot topic with regulators). Some Web3 games avoid giving a direct cash-out to players to maintain the focus on gameplay rather than earning. Hellsword might do something similar by tying token value more to in-game uses than to speculation.
Game Store & Revenue: Hellsword will have a game store for direct purchases. This is a tried-and-true model: the game itself sells card packs, loot crates, or cosmetics to players for either fiat or its token. Many blockchain games still generate initial revenue from selling packs (e.g., Gods Unchained sold card packs in its early seasons). Hellsword can periodically release new card sets and sell booster packs. Because of NFTs, they could also sell limited-edition cards or skins – for example, a special alternate-art card that only 100 copies will ever be minted, sold in an auction or for a high fixed price. Cosmetic monetization might include things like unique avatars, titles, visual effects for your cards, or decorations for your land (imagine buying a cool voxel statue to place on your land). These cosmetic NFTs don’t affect gameplay and are good monetization that doesn’t imbalance the game, plus they encourage personalization.
Another monetization angle is battle passes or subscriptions. Hellsword could offer a monthly pass that gives extra rewards, maybe paid in fiat or token. This is common in F2P games now. They could integrate that with Web3 by giving pass holders some NFTs or staking rewards.
The private blockchain aspect means the devs have flexibility in pricing models: they can charge in regular money or their token as they see fit. If in-game prices are in tokens, the effective fiat price will fluctuate with token value – some games handle this by frequently adjusting token price or using stablecoins for purchases to have price stability.
Preventing Pay-to-Win: With a marketplace, inevitably some players will buy powerful cards from others (or from the game) instead of earning them. To maintain balance, Hellsword can adopt measures: matchmaking by deck power (so whales fight whales), ensuring no single card or deck is unbeatable without skill, and offering alternative routes to obtain cards for free players (like through playing events or crafting). Also, if fusion/upgrading is a big factor, even a whale who buys base cards might still need to invest time or tokens to fuse them up – which could level the field if a free player is very active and accomplishes similar via play. The idea is to avoid a pure “swipe credit card, get top deck” scenario. The presence of NFTs and tokens means some players might earn by selling to spenders, which creates an interesting dynamic where spenders fund the earners in exchange for in-game progress. That’s okay as long as it doesn’t trivialize the game for spenders.
Anti-Botting Measures: With any real-value economy, bots and multi-account farmers are a serious concern. Bots could try to grind tokens or items to sell, undermining the game’s economy and ruining the experience for real players. Hellsword will need a multifaceted anti-bot strategy:
-
Gameplay Design: As one reddit comment notes, “the only way to combat bots is with sound game mechanics”
. This means making sure the act of playing and earning can’t be easily automated without human input. For example, incorporate puzzles or unpredictable elements that bots struggle with. Or require active deck management and strategy changes that AI can’t easily replicate at scale. If Hellsword’s battles were purely auto-resolve and repeatable, bots would thrive; but if it requires adaptability, botting is harder.
-
Rate Limits & Diminishing Returns: Limit how fast one account can grind rewards. Many games have stamina or energy systems – Hellsword might limit the number of high-reward battles per day. After that, additional play yields much lower rewards, not worth a bot’s effort. Also, using off-chain resources like we discussed (untradeable flux or salvage) means a bot can’t directly cash those out, reducing their incentive.
-
Detection Systems: Hellsword should implement bot detection algorithms on the server side. This could include monitoring play patterns (e.g., accounts that play 20 hours a day non-stop, or input timings that are too perfectly consistent). Modern approaches use machine learning to identify patterns of behavior that distinguish bots from humans
. For instance, Pixels (a Web3 farming game) invested in AI-driven detection and segmentation of players to find bots and even focus rewards on genuine players
. Hellsword can do similarly: flag suspicious accounts for review. Maybe require captchas or additional verification if an account is earning a lot and exhibits bot-like traits.
-
Encourage Genuine Play: The Pixels CEO mentions they fine-tuned rewards to players likely to reinvest in the game rather than just cash out
. Hellsword could implement a reputation or honor system. For example, players who participate in community events, or have verified accounts, or who spend some tokens on upgrades, could get better drop rates or event access than throwaway accounts. This skews profitability away from disposable bot accounts and towards real, engaged players. Over time, known human players could build a reputation score (maybe even an NFT badge) that signifies they’re a valued community member; the game might design reward algorithms to favor those. It’s a somewhat controversial but effective idea: basically, don’t reward behavior that matches a “farm and dump” profile as much as behavior that matches a “play and invest” profile
.
-
Policy Enforcement: Because Hellsword isn’t fully decentralized, the devs can enforce Terms of Service. They can ban accounts or revoke assets in cases of clear botting or cheating. They might outline that if you’re caught botting, your account and possibly your items (even NFTs) can be seized or invalidated. This threat can deter casual botters. Technically, since players “own” the NFTs, revoking them is tricky – but they could, for example, flag certain assets as tainted and not allow them in competitive play or trading if they came from botting. A softer approach is just banning the account from earning further, which makes the assets that account holds finite and hopefully not profitable to accumulate further. It’s a delicate balance: they want a real economy but also to control it. Many play-to-earn games struggled here – if too lenient, bot farms flood the market; if too strict, they contradict the “ownership” premise. A balanced approach is to design the economy such that botting isn’t very lucrative, and enforce rules for the egregious cases.
-
Proof-of-Human Systems: Some innovative ideas (like Proof of Play / Proof of Humanity) are emerging. There’s mention of “Proof of Exposure” which integrates verification into lore
. Hellsword could get creative – e.g., occasional in-game events that require solving a human logic puzzle to unlock a reward. Or utilizing something like CAPTCHA mini-games at unpredictable times during long sessions. Also multi-factor authentication (linking phone or email) can limit one person from making dozens of accounts easily, especially if each needs a unique phone.
Anti-botting is an ongoing war; Hellsword’s advantage is that as a controlled environment, they can update the game to nerf any strategy bots exploit and use off-chain data analysis to catch them. The Pixel’s approach of not going heavy on KYC but using data science to allocate rewards is a promising blueprint
– essentially, reward players who behave like real enthusiasts (who likely spend some money or socialize), and reduce rewards for accounts that trip bot flags (they might still play, but they gain less, making it not worth it).
Bot-resistant Economy: Another note: by having a player-driven marketplace with supply and demand, if bots do manage to farm some resources, the increased supply will drive the price down, reducing their profit. This natural market response, combined with token sinks, can blunt widespread bot farming – the more they farm, the less each unit is worth. At some equilibrium it becomes not worth the electricity or time to bot. Axie Infinity saw hyperinflation of SLP due to botting among other factors
, whereas a game like Hellsword can mitigate that with aggressive sinks and making PvE farming only one of many sources (others being competitive play which bots can’t do well).
Summing up Monetization: Hellsword will monetize through a mix of primary sales (packs, cosmetics, land) and secondary market fees, possibly supplemented by optional premium passes or services. The marketplace ensures that spending is often player-to-player (with the game taking a cut), which can foster a healthy community economy – players who spend feel like they’re supporting other players (who earned the items), and the game still earns revenue. The native token economy, if successful, could also appreciate in value – some games hold a treasury of their own tokens, so if the game grows and token demand rises, the devs’ treasury gains value, indirectly funding development.
Crucially, Hellsword must keep the game fun and not let monetization undermine it. By adhering to best practices (cosmetic sales, fair gacha rates if any, not selling direct power unearned, etc.), it can avoid “cash grab” pitfalls. Lessons from both F2P and Web3 games show that long-term success comes from player trust and retention, which means no excessive pay-to-win and responsive management of the economy. The marketplace and token give players freedom and stake in the game, which can boost retention (players stick around because their collection is an investment). As long as anti-bot measures and economic levers are in place, Hellsword’s monetization can be a win-win: players can potentially earn or recoup some value (which attracts many to Web3 games), and the game can earn revenue continually from a vibrant, circulating economy rather than solely from one-time sales.
Best Practices & Conclusion: In developing Hellsword, we’ve drawn on the best practices in Web3 gaming so far: leveraging blockchain for true asset ownership and transparent economies, but keeping much of the game logic off-chain for speed and flexibility
. We see the importance of player-centric design – gameplay must be engaging in its own right (learning from Tyrant’s success in fun quick battles, and from newer games’ failures when they focus too much on earning). By using a private blockchain, Hellsword gets the benefits of blockchain (security, verifiable ownership, digital scarcity) without the downsides (slow transactions, high fees, complicated onboarding)
. The choice between a custom chain vs existing solutions was weighed; a custom private chain offers maximum control and a tailored experience, which suits Hellsword’s approach of not being fully decentralized yet integrating “blockchain-like” elements.
Economically, we applied lessons from earlier token economies – ensuring a balance of faucets and sinks
, avoiding uncontrolled inflation that plagued games like Axie Infinity
, and using hybrid off-chain resources (like GU’s Flux) to curb speculation and farming
. The card fusion design prevents runaway stat creep by requiring exponentially more resources for each gain, a technique used in Tyrant and other CCGs to keep progression finite
.
On the gameplay side, we take the beloved features of War Metal/Tyrant – deck strategy, missions, guild wars – and elevate them with modern ideas: player-owned worlds, NFT marketplaces, and community co-creation. Guild wars aren’t just leaderboards now, but tangible territory conflicts on the world map. Players aren’t just opening booster packs, but potentially minting cards and contributing to the game’s economy. Every major design decision has been filtered through both a game design lens and an economic lens, to ensure Hellsword is sustainable and enjoyable.
By combining a solid game loop (collect cards, build decks, battle in PvE/PvP, progress and repeat) with the Web3 layer (own, trade, earn, govern), Hellsword aims to achieve long-term engagement. The game’s technical backbone – a secure private blockchain integrated with proven Web3 tooling – ensures the economy runs smoothly and securely behind the scenes. The economic design – a well-regulated token with sinks, a marketplace with fees, land integration, etc. – ensures that neither rampant inflation nor pay-to-win dynamics ruin the game’s longevity. And the lessons of past successes and failures in both blockchain games and traditional F2P games have guided the plan, hopefully avoiding known pitfalls (like making token rewards too central, or ignoring fun for profit).
In summary, the optimal design for Hellsword is one where blockchain technology empowers players (through true ownership, transparency, and new gameplay possibilities) while the developers retain enough control to guide the game’s balance and economy. It’s a careful blend of decentralization and centralized game design: a private ledger for a shared world. If executed well, Hellsword could showcase how Web3 concepts enrich a game without overwhelming it – delivering a rich collectible card MMO experience that can thrive for years on the strength of both its gameplay and its player-driven economy.