|
Fencing is sort of what I've been trying to simulate in my game, so this is interesting. I have it so it's cards numbered 1-12, and you want to get over, but not too far over or the opponent counters. There's a few problems with doing that though, so I'm trying to figure out if I need to do something else.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Here's a Clubbed to Death: A Card Game for 2-5 players Take a standard deck of playing cards, and shuffle them. Deal four cards to each player, and leave the remaining cards in a pile in the middle of the table. Take turns in clockwise order. On each player's turn, that player draws a card and reveals it. If they reveal a Club, they have been CLUBBED TO DEATH and are out of the game. If they draw any other card, they add it to their hand. On your turn, you may play one card from your hand for the following effects, either before or after drawing your card: SPADE: Dig! Look at the top three cards and rearrange them in any order. DIAMOND: Bribe! Skip your turn without drawing any cards. HEART: Seduce! Negate the effect of a CLUB card and instead add it to your hand. CLUB: Attack! Place in front of an opponent. On their turn, they must draw extra cards equal to the number of CLUB cards in front of them. After a card is resolved, place it in a discard pile. Club cards are resolved after the player draws the additional cards - if they skip their turn with a Diamond, the clubs will still be there for them next turn. If you need to draw a card and there are none left, shuffle the discard pile to make a new draw deck. Last player to be CLUBBED TO DEATH wins! Now I just need some webcomic guy to draw custom art for it and pocket a cool 5 million. bobvonunheil fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Now I just need some webcomic guy to draw custom art for it and pocket a cool 5 million.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Sounds easy to learn, but hard to master. I'm in. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
So, I've had this idea floating around in my head the past few days, and I'm wondering if this mechanic is worth trying to hammer out or not. Basically, I want to make a double deckbuilder about pro wrestling. Your main deck is the kayfabe deck. (Kayfabe, in wrestling parlance, is the idea that the plot and characters are all real. Kayfabe is the universe the characters live in.) This has most of your general deckbuilder-y things. Plot events that do things, alliances with other wrestlers, etc. The kayfabe deck then manipulates the match deck. This is a smaller deck that you have a short, usually 1v1 minigame with either another player or a dummy wrestler. The winner gets "heat" (popularity), which can be used to further your career towards getting The Title Belt, the ultimate goal. There's one match every round of turns, going in turn order, and people can play modifiers to the match of they choose to. Obviously, this is all super vague as this is still very much in the conceptual stage, but I'm wondering if anything immediately stands out as a bad idea. Aside from the theme, that's totally my kind of bad. Also, are there any games that have tried something like this? My experience with deckbuilders is minimal, so I'd like to find some inspiration around, if so. My main concerns are: 1: Matches will be weird and disconnected from the rest of the game. I don't want to end up with a Spartacus situation. 2: It may turn into a Munchkin poo poo-on-the-leader and be a slog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
How is it a deck builder exactly? How/when do I build my deck? Does my deck get reset between matches or am I building a new deck? How does the Kayfabe Deck manipulate my Match Deck? Is Heat just Victory points or is it a resource?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Misandu posted:How is it a deck builder exactly? How/when do I build my deck? Does my deck get reset between matches or am I building a new deck? How does the Kayfabe Deck manipulate my Match Deck? Is Heat just Victory points or is it a resource? Right now, I'm not 100% sure on exact purchasing mechanics. I'm thinking that you can pick up any card you want a turn, but you have to meet a heat threshold, or its effectively blank. You can pick up the Hogan equivalent on the first turn, but if you're just a filthy mid-tier worker, he's not going to do anything for you until you're on his level. I don't want to Market Row it, so I'm still thinking through the exact methods. My first draft idea for matches is trying to achieve a target number. Each wrestler is trying to use their finishing move, which knocks out the opponent and wins the match. One has a value of 7, the other 9, for example. Each of the wrestling cards has a value/effect written on it. The goal is to get the total to your finisher value. You have a hand of 3 from your wrestle deck. Both choose and reveal a card to use at the same time, each wanting to get their target. So, if the current number is at 6, the 7 wrestler will try to play a -2, thinking his opponent will go for it and play a 3. Its supposed to be a really quick strategy minigame. Some cards can be played from kayfabe into the match deck. You pick up another wrestler, and put them into your wrestle deck. His effect sets the match number to 6. Maybe it's a chair that adds 1 to the match number, and negates your opponent's card. You have a number (10?) of base wrestling cards, that are always in the deck. Cards that are added via kayfabe are then removed post-match (possibly into kayfabe or discard, depending on the card), if they were used. Go RV! fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
quote:Wrestling Some random ideas: 1. Strong definition to your wrestler's personality - at least stuff like "I'm good so I don't do cheap shots and foreign objects", but maybe further like "I'm an acrobatic type guy, so I do X kind of move better". Maybe go all the way and do specific named personas with their own deckbuilding tech trees/markets. I don't think you can lose by making this more thematic, and asymmetry is a core wrestling thing. 2. Maybe combine your decks by having cards be double purpose? Like, maybe your deck is full of "match moves", but each also has a simple "kayfabe" value/ability that you use during the buying round. You might be faced with choices of getting cards that are good for "kayfabe"/buying, or ones that are better in a match. Or you might have tough choices about holding back cards that have good "kayfabe" abilities because you want to use them in the match. 3. For buying/out-of-match interaction, maybe some kind of a liar's dice mechanic, to represent the challenges/call-outs/bravado leading into a match? Like, you take turns placing cards face down and announcing a total (threat/whatever) score. Others (or maybe just one opponent?) can call your bluff (in which case you flip the cards and see) or announce a bigger number back and forth. I think something to capture the interplay/boasting/threatening between wrestlers would be good. Then, based on how that plays out, you get to upgrade your deck/choose first from a common market/whatever. What you don't want to hear is something Dominion-esque, like "8 wrestlebucks, buying powerslam". That would suck I think. 3. For 4 players, do the matches as tag teams, or do simultaneous matches (with rotating partners in either case). Whatever you do here, make the actual matches short and interesting. 4. Or, maybe something like this for 4 players: 1 guy has the belt. He fights the challenger for the belt. At the same time, the other 2 fight to see who will be the next challenger. You pile up victory points/money/whatever for winning, for being the champ, or maybe directly for certain kayfabe cards (ie. maybe you have cards shilling for the man or selling action figures to directly get VP or whatever?). Anyway, just some random ideas. I think it's an underserved niche actually, and a good theme to make a deckbuilder out of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Some random ideas: Yeah, these are both things I want to do. I had definitely been thinking another threshold along the Face/Heel (Good Guy/Bad Guy) line. Split the heat types, where there's face heat and heel heat. Faces get better wrestling moves in general, but heels get better tricks. (Weapons, feet on the ropes, etc. Chairs are pretty universal, where sledgehammers are reserved for really big heels) I worry about narrowing it down further than that mechanically, but there's definitely room for plenty of moves for both luchadors and monsters. Plus, it's a funny thought to have a 300lb+ guy doing a hurricarana. Half the fun of pretending to be wrestlers is coming up with zany bullshit. Wrestlers, at least, will definitely have double function in kayfabe and in match, and maybe some of the better weapons/moves. I was also considering making the basic wrestling moves two sided, Kamigawa-style to give a few more options in play. jmzero posted:3. For buying/out-of-match interaction, maybe some kind of a liar's dice mechanic, to represent the challenges/call-outs/bravado leading into a match? Like, you take turns placing cards face down and announcing a total (threat/whatever) score. Others (or maybe just one opponent?) can call your bluff (in which case you flip the cards and see) or announce a bigger number back and forth. I think something to capture the interplay/boasting/threatening between wrestlers would be good. Then, based on how that plays out, you get to upgrade your deck/choose first from a common market/whatever. What you don't want to hear is something Dominion-esque, like "8 wrestlebucks, buying powerslam". That would suck I think. I'm definitely making it an official rule that you have to actually cut the promo in real life. jmzero posted:3. For 4 players, do the matches as tag teams, or do simultaneous matches (with rotating partners in either case). Whatever you do here, make the actual matches short and interesting. These are neat ideas, I like it. Go RV! fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
I've been getting back to an older project of mine, based on that SU&SD "Megagame" if you remember that (Watch the skies, go watch the video if you haven't) but without needing a small mansion and dozens of people to run it. The project so far is named  "Welcome to Earth", because I like beeing a cheeky bastard like that (there's some thought to some double meaning in that name too, but we'll get to that). This is a stupidly ambitious undertaking, but I'm developing it mostly as an exercise in design, so y'know, I'm not entirely crazy. Really.At its core, it's a game about... Paranoia. The focus is on what people say, what they actually do, and what their hidden aims are. Everyone got their own nation (or Alien armada) and while I've aimed for a design that certainly allows cooperative play (even encourages in some aspects) I also want to throw enough spanners in the works to turn all that potential friendliness into some intense "the thing/invasion of the bodysnatchers/pod people"-theme. Double agents, tripple agents, you name it. Needless to say, there's a lot of "Hidden movement" shenanigans baked into every little mechanic in this system, so even the most harmless/cooperatively gainful of actions could spell potential for a sucker punch (of some sort). This is accomplished through approaching the game sorta like a mix between the limitation of a board game (I like to at least pretend I'm keeping to what would physically be possible) and on the more practical side as a "forums game" sort of thing. For "objectives"/winning the game I want there to be enough groundwork to give the players various motivations in the game, yet enough room to go against any such objectives if they so desire. That the (secret) objectives *Exist* should be enough to create paranoia in itself, even if the players might not pursue them. So sorta like a traitor mechanic, except you aren't really all stuck together in some mall or cabin like in some zombie game. Yes, not only will there be an "obvious" alien player (although as to that players motivations, nothing need to be clear), directing a space armada of some sort from a secret base somewhere in the solar system, there can also *potentially* be one or more (or for comedy option, *all of them*) secret alien players on the Earth side of things (and they are all out to murder the visting Space Alien player). They may or may not be aligned with each other / that Alien up in space. Going with "emulating" various sci-fi horror movies there could even be room to include rules where Aliens are secretly taking over the planet, one player at a time  To top it up, mechanics to discover the identity of players, but no mechanic to actually reveal it as truth to everyone else, gotta trust me here guys - look I can show you some alien tech my commandos secured from Brad  Just like there could be games where everyone is some sort of self-serving (alien) rear end in a top hat by design, others could have everyone get objectives that puts them as pacficist/cooperative Star Trekian hug-zone - if they can actually trust those stated intentions. See what I'm getting at? Easy peasy to design a game around all this poo poo right?  So a little more indepth (without copy-pasting my entire... 68 pages or so design document): The Alien player (the one in space at least) gets to, starting out, play all his/her moves hidden from view, with everyone else much more visible*. The Alien can be detected, or choose to reveal some of his/her actions by GM proxy (the Earthside players won't really know the difference), I want to catch that "So the Aliens showed up, but what is it that they want?"-aspect of that Megagame. Perhaps the Alien player starts their first turn by dumping an armada on America, shooting the place up before scooting along, or straight up occupying North America. Or maybe the Aliens moves don't show up *at all* for several turns, other than what the GM implies (As some sort of "listening post" service). To help the Paranoia aspect, the Alien can secretly communicate with pretty much anyone, up to and including trading tech, favors or establishing secret pacts (but of course, the Humans might be double-crossing in turn... ). The aim for the Earthside players (and this can include their own "Secret Aliens", depending on *their* motivations) is to well... 1) Survive, homeland unoccupied and so on 2) Accomplish additional objectives of their own 3) Maybe knock out any competition to those objectives while they are at it. This may or may not include fighting the Space Aliens, or anyone else for that matter (good luck to the player with the secret objective to keep things peaceful). Through SCIENCE mechanics, the Humans can partially advance their own cause without the help (or theft from) the Alien, gaining the ability to detect Alien movements on (and around) Earth (orbit), and eventually the ability to get up into space to pay the Alien Main Base a visit (if they can find it) or even nuke the poo poo out of it. This means that there's a deliberate asymmetrical balance aspect in the design, where the Space Aliens start out potentially much stronger than any One Earthside player, but with the aim design wise to make it A) Undesirable for the Alien player to just go apeshit conquering (but a certain room for that too... no one gets to sit entirely easy when the Aliens comes-a-knocking after all! ) or B) Not quite strong to take everyone on at the same time, gotta loosen them up through subterfuge and so on first (A or B in the case of a generally hostile Space Alien objectives). As there's a certain freedom for anyone to bring out the big stick, there's also need for mechanics where there's no or very late player elimination (eliminating the Space Alien should probably end the game though). Even if their homeland is conquered, the player may have mechanics supporting their continued resistance (so in the case of America getting invaded on Turn 1, it's not over for that player - not by a longshot, perhaps by fierce resistance does the player regain their homeland... while secretly/collaborating with the Space Alien player... but is actually a cabal of entirely different shapeshifting Aliens bent on world conquest that *got here first* and there's no way they are giving up this blue gem to those Betazoid hicks  ).I'm guessing something like a minimum of 5 to... well, depending on how much book-keeping you'd like, a lot of players. Thee's room to make every playable Earth-nation a little different (at least as far as starting out goes). *there's some mechanics for espionage baked in for them too, but at least Earthside players combined Agents/Diplomats are all on the board somewhere, even if their actions are hidden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
It sounds like you've actually come up with something that would work brilliantly as a dedicated forums/PBEM game. You should seriously consider breaking out any ideas you had that would be physically impossible, but quite simple if there's a moderator running the game for a thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Yes, the more I worked over the mechanics the more ungainly all the hidden stuff became (kinda needs a separate board for the Alien player + a screen, and paper for everyone else to write down orders on) when restricted to a physical board game, while being rather easily resolved with a forums game with a dedicated GM + email/PM solution. The turn order / turn resolution / initiative is a chapter in and of itself, which I'd like to integrate with the "Where in the Solar system is Carmen Sandialien?"-mechanic. The further from Earth the Alien Main Base is, the further back in the turn order it is, but is in turn safer from exploration / attacks. There's some other stuff with how the Alien can deploy on the first turn and what actions are available too, but that's details. Important details mind you, to obfuscate the location of the Main Base from player deduction. Without digging up my notes I figured on some sort of bidding system for the turn order. The resolution is semi-simultaneous [Planning phase -> (Commitment Phase) -> Execution Phase], with the initiative/turn-order deciding what players orders happens first in the Execution phase. By bidding up they can gain agency over when they get to play, but at a steeper cost to their "economy" (so earlier actions, but less of them). The bid money was supposed to either go to the weakest/last in-order player, or to some sort of "UN Fund For Needing Children" (to be robbed at first opportunity). The Alien player is either outside of this system (Always goes first/last compared to the players), or got some other system that ties into their Main Base location. That Megagame had some pretty loose mechanics, and was more of a Role Playing game than a set-in-stones board game design, with some minimal dice rolling (and a whole team of moderators to help things along). It's hard to design systems and mechanics for *everything* in a game like this (hell, just a "geopolitics" game needs a ton of mechanics on its own without mixing in UFOs), so maybe it will lean more towards that sort of setup (still need rather strict basic conflict resolution systems though, can't have everything up to the GM either). Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:I've been getting back to an older project of mine, based on that SU&SD "Megagame" if you remember that (Watch the skies, go watch the video if you haven't) but without needing a small mansion and dozens of people to run it. I was wanting to do this when I saw that episode, then I got overwhelmed with what that meant. It's good to see someone doing this. :P If you run this here, I definitely want to play. Edit: Snipped down quote. :P
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Alright, can just as well post the next part of "Welcome to Earth: Willkommen härter" Let's talk Nations, who the players represent/control and what their objectives are. We can begin with what the Players are not: ”The Will of the People”, or some mysterious Paradoxian representation of the Nation state (...kinda?). Nor is the player El Presidente, a lone ruler free to do as he/she wishes (at least not entirely). The player controls ”the Elite”. The upper crust. Not a whole lot different from the El Presidente approach, but gives more room for the player not getting assassinated or the like, coups and alien infiltration can still happen (represented by changed Objectives) – but the Elite remains in some form. The player will always be in charge of their "nation" even if every piece of it happens to be occupied (so no real player elimination - a little tricky to come up with mechanics for what they can actually do under such extreme circumstances, but we'll get to that). So there's some ”cards” involved with this whole set up. A mix of... Cosmic Encounter and Ticket to Ride? for lack of a better comparison. *The players stuck on Earth gets handed/picks a Nation ”Card”, which gives a little briefer on their starting location, their ”Heartland/Core territory”, starting ”Assets” (Chits/Markers and Cards) and ”Influence”. Possibly some minor objectives that are "Fixed" or semi-randomized (for some more obfuscation about what's connected to their nation and what's their true secret objectives). *Next they get handed their ”Secret Objective” cards (Random draw). Plural there, those objectives may or may not be connect. But each objective card will have a list of prerequesites for tasty victory points (or at least the feeling of accomplishment). This can be in a falling order from ”Total Success” (take over Earth! For an extreme example), ”Major Success” (secure several continents) down to ”Minor Success” (hold your neck of the woods). Or less conquesty - ”No wars”, ”No more than 2 wars”, ”No ongoing wars at Games End”, ”No Nukes Used during the Game”. That sort of thing. No one else gets to see these objective cards (barring some espionage action, perhaps). There should probably be some duplicates, so that you can't quite nail down what the others might be - as well as allow for those unlikely games where everyone is out for Total Peace/Victory I mentioned. Like Ticket to Ride, you can discard at least some of your initial draw (in those scenarios where you draw 2 Pacifistic objectives and 1 Warmongering ones). A mechanic I sketched at yesterday was having a sort of "National Focus", where you select one of your Secret Objective cards and put it in a special little box, that particular objective counts for double the VP when it comes to scoring and possible a malus if you fail to achieve it/in part. The downside being you can't switch it out. *Finally, they get handed an... ”Identity card", basically if they are Human – or if they are an ”Alien Faction” (and what that Alien faction is all about is sort of a Secret Objective in and off itself, and can include special abilities). This particular card can switch during the game, so a Human can be switched out for an Alien, and vice-versa. This mechanic need some work, especially for the switching part - how it can happen (and be defended against) in the first place will probably involve "Agent" assets (more on those in another post), but also how/if they can switch back afterwards. People can be pretty poor at just roleplaying things (or get involved in some vendettas), so there needs to be some incentive to stick with things and not just try to immediately get switched back at first opportunity (assuming anyone believes you). Perhaps some sort of "shared victory" mechanic. For those starting the game as Aliens on Earth, they can be aligned with, against or neutral to the Space Aliens. They can also start out as "Hidden" (i.e acts as "Humans" and no one else is the wiser), Semi-Hidden (the Space Aliens know, the Earth Aliens might or might not know that the Space Aliens know  ) and Revealed (Everyone knows... but the Earth Alien gets to make the declaration of what *type* they are... and probably lie).*The Alien in Space is similar to the above, except for drawing or picking from a selection of Alien types - perhaps with some objectives built into those "identities" (so the Bloodmongers of Razputin Prime will always be out to gently caress some poo poo up - just a matter of where / how much). There's plenty of... space in space, so the Alien player also gets to choose where in the Solar System "range bands" they get to set down their main base, or possibly have (depending on Alien type) a mobile Mothership. This affects their deployment/first turn options and starting forces, but due to the time scale involved and their advanced tech it doesn't have all that much influence later on in the game. It will influence how easy it is to get to their base though. Some alien types will favour certain fleet types, lots of bases, a big Main Base or a Mobile Mothership. Some may have Ground forces, others not. Some may start with a shitload of Agents already on Earth, others may be Wizbang scientists of various sorts. Lots of room here for "expansion" and variations. Basically, all the Earthsiders know is that there's some Aliens in Space - and whatever they claim they are (if they bother) and what they are after when they announce themselves. To help interaction along between the Earthsiders and the Space Alien players I'm thinking of including a "Resource" for the space part, something like Biometal from Battlezone (1998) or Elerium from X-Com - because there needs to be a (possibly) non-hostile reason for people to want to go up into the space section of the game (late game phase) besides attacking the Alien. Objectives can help here too, such as "uplifting", "A Fair Fight" or "Armstrong" giving VPs for helping the humans get to space / getting them into space to blow them up properly / Getting into space without alien help to name a few examples. There's a little of this resource sprinkled over the neutral territories/nations on Earth too, to give reason for people to go after those places and spark some nice resource wars. The resource could be handled like in the Civ games, so it's not something you get more of each turn just by sitting on them - but a fixed resource that allows for certain actions / construction per resource you hold/trade for (of "1" space fleet, want more? Go secure more resources). I don't want to have additional territory give *too* many advantages, so the resource will not be supplementing the standard resources* too much. At most, maybe an extra economy card draw if you aren't using your Biometalerium resource for anything else. Maybe give nuclear weapons an additional "punch"... The resource could also give a limited amount of Victory Points on its own and of course, the Biometalerium could tie into objectives too! Like making sure everyone gets a piece, or hogging it entirely for yourself. So sticking with the goal of a game about Paranoia, this resource can both be used entirely peacefully but also maliciously. Above all, it got to be desirable, not overpowered and you can't ignore it (if for nothing else, keeping everyone else away). *More on those later, along with "assets"/tools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
There's a game I've had on my mind for a while called Scrap Dogs basicially a mashup of Galaxy Trucker and Steve Jackson's Revolution! (which is actually pretty rad for a Steve Jackson game). Elevator pitch: Starts as an auction game where you try to assemble the best mech, then you have a flight phase where you deal with various hazards and put them to the test. The winner is the player with the most Glory at the end of the flight. Glory is mostly obtained by how well your mech does in the Flight, but you can earn a bit during the auction by bribing the media to tell stories of your greatness. I have a rough draft of what the auction system should look like, just curious of any first impressions.
And the locations: Bar Bid, credit/reactor ban. +1 credit. Effluent Plant Action +1 reactor Slums Bid, scrap ban +5 scrap Academy Bid, variable If a player did not spend the most actions on this, they lose one of their most expensive currency from their bid for each action less. +2 credits. Workshop Bid, scrap/reactor ban. +3 scrap and +2 reactors. News Office Bid +2 Glory. Become this rounds Ace, if you are not already. (This does not affect who will be Ace next round.) Scrapyard Action, variable +1 scrap for each action spent. If you scavenged more than any other player this round (no ties), also gain +1 reactor. Auction Hall Bid Bid winner gains a faceup schematic. Then second place gains a faceup schematic. Other players get their bids refunded. Black Market Bid Draw two schematics. Gain one and discard one. Laboratory Bid Choose a faceup augment and add it to one of your mech’s parts. Then second place chooses a faceup augment and adds it to one of their mechs parts. Garage Action, variable For each action token, you may do one of the following:
Observatory Action Look at any player’s Orbit cards. Shipyard Action You may only spend 1 action per turn at the Shipyard. Action tokens spent on the Shipyard are never removed. The effect of your token depends on how many tokens have been spent already:
Obviously subject to change on testing but at least it gets close to what I want. I like having the end of the auction phase be dynamic, so no matter how the Shipyard ends up changing it'll always do that. And now...I need to design the entire Flight phase, and by extension every schematic and augment  . I'm always bad at making big sets of things like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:...holy poo poo, that was intentional? I was quite impressed by how much thought you put into the game design before, but now I'm completely blown away. If I nerfed Shield of Vega, it would be to add [MAX BREAK: 1 Balance] to the BOOST. It would get 2 Barriers by itself before having to rely on Generics for more (intended upside: 2 different Generics can support its Barrier needs, intended downside: it would need either multiple Generics for 4 Barrier situations or it would have to burn something out, meaning that Spiral Knuckle has a definite cost). However, Magic Knight also lacks many basic Hold elements; it has no Dodge or Ballistic and only 1 Laser. I might not touch it after all. Magic Knight is supposed to be an independent unit who doesn't contribute well to a team while being a fierce combatant all its own, like a Dragonzord type. rchandra posted:For the "print on label paper" sheet, it would be nice if the default layout worked with address label sheets or something similar. Could you fix it for the public PnP release? If you can't find a way to make that work, then at least leave more space and coloured border around each component to make an imperfect cut look OK (like they do on punchboard sheets). Given that they're different orientations on the cards, I might not do anything to the card icon, but I'll totally fix the token version for the PNP. The real version will have vertically asymmetrical tokens which might make such a thing less necessary. Still, I'm going to look into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Hey, Broken Loose, what's the rationale behind separate melee and shooting attack decks? I'm sure there's some pattern to each, I just haven't spotted it right off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Given that they're different orientations on the cards, I might not do anything to the card icon, but I'll totally fix the token version for the PNP. The real version will have vertically asymmetrical tokens which might make such a thing less necessary. Still, I'm going to look into it. My ghetto fix for the PnP will be making those tokens triangular, maybe with a word at the bottom (I know you don't want a word for style and/or translation). One other thing for the PnP, the rulebook shouldn't have your hardcoded page layout. If I wanted to print it as a booklet, for example (very convenient for fitting in a Carcassone expansion box), I can't since the "pages" are pre-combined as other pages. If a person wants to print it 2-up that would be a simple setting for them anyway, unmangling the pdf is harder. If I send the PDF to Staples their system seems to get confused by the first page being different from the rest, that's probably their fault though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Hey, Broken Loose, what's the rationale behind separate melee and shooting attack decks? I'm sure there's some pattern to each, I just haven't spotted it right off the bat. Melee Attacks: Are Held off by Melee/Barrier/Dodge/Ballistic and cause Knockdown as a secondary effect. Shooting Attacks: Are Held off by Laser/Barrier/Dodge/Ballistic and cause EN drain as a secondary effect. There is 1 unique attack per deck that is both Hold and Payback of the deck-exclusive element, and their Threat has a secondary effect. I may alter Nanto Ansatsuken to have WILL drain instead of Knockdown to match Auto Pressure, but it's not a priority. The other effect of split Attack decks is the Events split. You can't seed 8+ Events onto a single deck and guarantee them all to come up consecutively. You have to split the Events between the decks, which means after shuffling you no longer guarantee Events before Attacks of each deck. rchandra posted:My ghetto fix for the PnP will be making those tokens triangular, maybe with a word at the bottom (I know you don't want a word for style and/or translation). I'm just gonna add words to those 2 tokens. It's just supposed to be identifiable. I'll fix the PDF tonight after I figure out a possible label sheet layout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I'm just gonna add words to those 2 tokens. It's just supposed to be identifiable. Why don't you just use a line under the arrows to represent the bottom of the token? Like how 6 and 9 are done at times. Seems the simplest solution if you don't want to use text.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Hello all. I've had a couple of ideas for board games that I have been working on for awhile and was looking for a good place to potentially discuss them as ideas. I have working prototypes for both and played with a few friends with them. But I would like to get a wider audience's opinion. I figure before going into rules if the core concept of the game wasn't interesting then why continue? The first game I'm calling Blob and it's about army ants. The object of the game is to eat or starve out all your opponents. The board is set up so that plays need to make columns of ants to act like arms of the blob to grab what you need. Players try to gather food (or kill enemy ants to turn them into food) which they use to make more ants. There is only a set number of food tokens from the start and once all food tokens are collected, the game goes into starvation mode. From that point on, all players must pay food at the start of their turn or sacrifice an ant. If a player doesn't have any food or ants remaining, they lose. You can also kill other player's queens to knock them out sooner if you feel ballsy. The game is for between 2 and 4 players. If a player gets knocked out before starvation mode kicks in, they can choose to rejoin from another part of the map if they want. But once it does start, that's it. This way the game doesn't take forever as you can limit the number of food tokens to either shorten or lengthen the game. Also if you lose early, you can come back instead of sitting for an hour. The second game idea I have doesn't have an official title as of yet but basically its a game about smuggling. Each player has a port somewhere on the board and they send ships out from it to other players ports. A ship can carry up to 3 cargo tokens that the shipping player hides under the ship so no one else knows what is on it. If the ship reaches another player's port, the ship is removed and the cargo is revealed. Depending on what was shipped/smuggled, different things happen. Most of the cargo is legal and shipping it gains income for both the shipper and receiver. But some of it is illegal that only gains money for the smuggling player. Agents can also be sent to knock out ports, steal money, or look through a players cargo on their ships. The main means of defense are your frigates that you can use to stop ships and search them. However, each player gets 5 ships and only 3 frigates, so at least some of the ships will slip by. Also there's a pirate in the middle of the board that is controlled by no one who's goal is steal cargo and sink ships. The first person to gather enough money to buy all their victory points wins. If anyone is interested in either of those ideas, I have written the rules for both. I'm aiming for games that A: don't take forever; and B: have good strategic depth without being either overwhelming or complicated. I also wanted to make games that forced players to interact with each other without forcing them into strategies that they don't find enjoyable. I appreciate any feedback.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I'm just gonna add words to those 2 tokens. It's just supposed to be identifiable. Here's my quick fix which you are most welcome to use, it printed nicely on half a sheet of 3 labels by 8 (around 2.875 inches by 1.375 per label): It includes "KO" and "UP" on the arrows. edit: Forgot to include the Ice token. fixed but untested now: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Q4KqglmT3HN21SS0cweW5EcWs/view?usp=sharing rchandra fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
rchandra posted:edit: Forgot to include the Ice token. fixed but untested now:
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
So I've worked up a simple game that's basically a push your luck take on rock paper scissors (and therefore, I'm fairly certain something better already exists, probably in Yomi?) where you have attacks of varying speeds and powers. The game ends when one player reduces the others life from 20 to zero. Currently the game seems balanced around the following cards but I've debated adding more to mix it up. Cancelled (If an Action is cancelled it does no damage.) Counter (If two Actions have the same speed they are both Cancelled.) Speed 4 Power 8 Speed 6 Power 6 Speed 8 Power 4 Dodge 5 (If an opponent’s action has Speed 5 or less it is cancelled.) Speed 9 Power 3 Dodge 6 (If an opponent’s action has Speed 6 or less it is cancelled.) Speed 7 Power 3 Block 4 (If an opponent’s action has Power 4 or less it is cancelled.) Speed 5 Power 2 Block 3 (If an opponent’s action has Power 3 or less it is cancelled.) Dodge 4 (If an opponent’s action has Speed 4 or less it is cancelled.) Perfect Strike (This Action ignores Block and Dodge.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:(and therefore, I'm fairly certain something better already exists, probably in Yomi?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:It sounds like you just re-invented BattleCON. ..it may be an inspiration for this. Though I had hoped to keep my design different enough so that it isn't clonily similar. Also I went through and did the match ups between the actions. Based on this I may need to change the math some... Match Ups Action 1 (-2): vs 2 (+2) vs 3 (-4) vs 4 (-3) vs 5 (+5) vs 6 (-2) Action 2 (+4): vs 1 (-2) vs 3 (+2) vs 4 (-3) vs 5 (+3) vs 6 (+4) Action 3 (+2): vs 1 (+4) vs 2 (-2) vs 4 (+1) vs 5 (-3) vs 6 (+2) Action 4 (0): vs 1 (+3) vs 2 (+3) vs 3 (-1) vs 5 (-3) vs 6 (-2) Action 5 (-4): vs 1 (-5) vs 2 (-3) vs 3 (+3) vs 4 (+3) vs 6 (-2) Action 6 (0): vs 1 (+2) vs 2 (-4) vs 3 (-2) vs 4 (+2) vs 5 (+2)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
No matter how you balance the payoff matrix, I can't imagine that being a game I'd want to play without some more layers of stuff going on. I mean, we also didn't like BattleCON - even though it does have more game state and more layers of stuff over the payoff matrix, it didn't feel like enough. Predicting my opponent's moves can be part of a game I like, but when used as a central mechanic it feels kind of random/hollow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I had this idea last night to make a game based on video game RTS stuff. Basically the idea is this- 1- Macro economy management. The core of the game is worker placement, but with a catch. The chits you amass are used to create buildings that allow you to build units. Each player has a game board that they use to place workers at different locations, which gives them chits of different types per turn. This is your currency which you use to buy buildings, represented by "complete" tokens on the board. 2- Army building Using your remaining chits, there is a buy phase where you can buy as many units of whatever kind as you have access to. There's no limit, but players can watch you purchase. To keep it fair, alternate first buy every turn. Players alternate buying until both players pass. 3- Fighting Place your unit cards face down at strategic locations. Each unit has a bonus to fighting other units of different types, so it's in your best interest to place cards in a way that you have an advantage in the fight. Both players place cards face down and turn them over once committed. Take turns placing cards until both players pass. Call it anteing. Combat resolves as is indicated on the cards, and if you win a fight, you take the strategic location, which gives you an extra worker placement location and also victory points. 4- Winning the game Here's where I got stuck
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:I had this idea last night to make a game based on video game RTS stuff. Basically the idea is this- I've been playing around with a similar idea but have yet to be able to translate it as well as you have into a game idea. It sounds like you have the game figured out, with players winning once they've accumulated a certain, predetermined amount of VP from capturing/holding the strategic locations. jmzero posted:No matter how you balance the payoff matrix, I can't imagine that being a game I'd want to play without some more layers of stuff going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
quote:I had this idea last night to make a game based on video game RTS stuff. Basically the idea is this- This sounds promising. I'd be a bit concerned that the worker placement part comes out interesting. If it's just "I take Vespene", "you take Minerals", "I take Wheels", repeat for a while, I don't think that'll be interesting enough to warrant the time - though I do like the idea of "accumulating spaces" vs. "RTS unit balance/progression". Like, stuff X makes "early game units" and they suck now... but what if I can get 4 of them for one action? You'd end up with a lot of little "auctions", and the interplay could end up really interesting. Also, if you could, say, come up with an interesting way to handle a tech tree in a satisfying way within the worker placement, I think that could make the whole thing come to life. quote:Combat resolves as is indicated on the cards, and if you win a fight, you take the strategic location, which gives you an extra worker placement location and also victory points. I'm always nervous about doubling up on victory. Like, if you win this round and that means you have more production options, how does that work for loser-guy? I'd be tempted to just make the fights for victory points, and then have good ways for trailing players to "up the ante"/"go high risk" in order to potentially get back in (or quickly end the game by losing their desperate plan). Also, you might want to peek at Ares Project. It wasn't a huge success, but it's very much an RTS game, and had some mechanics for building stuff secretly (while still preventing cheating) that might be some inspiration. VVV: Sure? It sounds good to me as long as it's not the "you won battle one, so here's your upgrades"/"you lost so screw you" pattern. jmzero fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I'm always nervous about doubling up on victory. Like, if you win this round and that means you have more production options, how does that work for loser-guy? I'd be tempted to just make the fights for victory points, and then have good ways for trailing players to "up the ante"/"go high risk" in order to potentially get back in (or quickly end the game by losing their desperate plan). What if you add in a way to take points back? If you win a location, you turn the location card 90 degrees to face yourself, rather than taking the card entirely. You leave your units at the location and there's some kind of cost for doing so, either by paying upkeep or having a limit to the number of units you can have, but now the other guy knows what you have at that location and can plan to take it from you more easily. Meanwhile if you want to keep it, you have to commit reinforcements to the location, which is an opportunity cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Predicting my opponent's moves can be part of a game I like, but when used as a central mechanic it feels kind of random/hollow. How true this is. When you have computers playing against each other in hundreds or thousands (or tens of thousands, etc) of iterations, a game problem that consists entirely of predicting opponent moves can get really really interesting. When it's two people sitting across from each other, playing rock-paper-scissors just doesn't have a lot of meat on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Re: RTS inspired board game, something that comes to mind is how there's this element of micromanagement to RTS games. You can fire and forget groups to 'go there [and attack whatever you run into]' but it's better if you can micromanage it. However you can't be in two places at once. I wonder if there would be any value in an RTS inspired game that gets players to balance between micromanagement and leaving things to fire-and-forget autopilot. Generally the more you can micromanage, the better but it's better yet if you can focus on where your opponent isn't (so there's an element to predicting what your opponent will or won't do.) It's a game about balancing the macro- versus micro- management, and also about knowing your limits because nothing's worse than biting off more than you can chew, micromanagement-wise. Time could be the limiting factor. Like, you only get a minute (or whatever) to direct everything for the upcoming turn and can freely select between macro- and micro- orders, the limiting factor is time and how much you can keep track of in your head. Probably a game where the people more suited to that kind of thinky brain burning would do well and those who are not simply get crushed mercilessly, but v  v
The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I'm currently redoing the PnP in prep for the public release. What issues did you have? The cards have spaces between them (or just large borders?), so if you're going to sleeve/Magic-back them you need to use a bunch of extra cuts to cut them out. This only gets worse if you're cutting imperfectly, like I did. The sheets with the Robeasts mixed with cards make cutting a bit harder (especially with a paper guillotine), at a minimum the Robeasts should be together. The "Print 6 times" file has a near-empty page, that added a couple extra dollars (I had Staples print the files since I don't have a colour printer). It could have been quadruplicated for "Print once" with the extras going onto other pages. Tokens should be laid out for label sheets, and the rulebook has a strange and inconsistent layout (those two you were already fixing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Speaking of Final Attack!, is there a "How to Play" rulebook that I have missed or is it not part of the PnP? (yet?) The rulebook linked in the campaign says (paraphrased) "This isn't How To Play, go read How To Play" but if it's available I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
It's not part of the PNP yet. The PNP has a little note in it, saying "The guide isn't ready, here's what you need to know that the tutorial video didn't cover."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Huh, I somehow missed that. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Re: RTS inspired board game, something that comes to mind is how there's this element of micromanagement to RTS games. You can fire and forget groups to 'go there [and attack whatever you run into]' but it's better if you can micromanage it. However you can't be in two places at once. I think a truly RTS inspired board game would resemble a worker placement game in a lot of ways. Your "workers" would be an abstracted attention or focus, signifying you as a player directing your forces. Think of it like Starcraft 2. You can spend 1 Focus on your main hall building to build a worker each turn, or you could spend 1 Focus to queue up several. This saves you Focus for later turns at the cost of spending more resources up front. You can initiate an attack with 1 Focus and then go spend Focus at your base to keep up production, or you can devote Focus to your units to maximize damage or activate powerful abilities. It's an interesting idea that I think could be really fun! If you end up doing anything with it make sure you let us know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
It was just an idea but gears are turning in my head now. I like that Focus concept, that's clever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Oh hell yeah, I'm definitely using something like that when I sink my teeth into this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:23
|
|