|
After an initial playtest, I can confidently say number tweaks are needed- when I post the pdf with the fixed card sizes I'll point out number changes in case anyone printed out the old one. Nothing super major, don't worry.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:After an initial playtest, I can confidently say number tweaks are needed- when I post the pdf with the fixed card sizes I'll point out number changes in case anyone printed out the old one. Nothing super major, don't worry. CodfishCartographer posted:Mechanics -> theme question: I have a weapon where one attack will effect the very next attack. For example, Attack A gives you a mobility boost. Attack B then gets the same mobility boost as Attack A, but then also deals bonus damage. Attack C gains the bonus damage from Attack B, and then also gives a defense bonus - but does not get Attack A's mobility bonus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it even if I wound up coming up with a solution. I wound up going with Bow and Arrow, due to being able to fire multiple kinds of arrows at once and by using different styles (fire arrows, poison arrows, piercing arrows, shooting multiple at a time, raining arrows down, etc) I really like the suggest for left/ring swings, and might figure out some way to work that in for a future weapon, or if bow and arrow doesn't work out. The main issue I can see with it is it might be tough to design it in a way where there's still some meaningful decisions in what order to play cards in. The left / right swinging theme actually makes me think of transforming weapons suggested by other goons - chain attacks with one style, swap to another for a big boost based on the chain that was built-up. Or something. Behemoth has given me so many half-made ideas, someday I'll make them work. Maybe in another game, but someday it'll happen!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Sorry for another double post, but here is the Behemoth print and play! and again, here are the rules. For the Behemoth cards, The fronts and backs are placed next to each other, either vertically or horizontally. A reference for the Behemoth Cards can be found at the bottom of the rules, in case your fronts and backs get mixed up before you get them sleeved!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Would anyone be interested in playtesting/a PBP of a game I designed like 4 years ago but never got to play test? It's a mixture of role selection/worker placement game about line infantry. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YbphJ6vXJDXKFiqADJgi7VlNow3_IEh2xhFGtgvGKWQ/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Would anyone be interested in playtesting/a PBP of a game I designed like 4 years ago but never got to play test? It's a mixture of role selection/worker placement game about line infantry. Is it one on one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is it one on one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I can handle a play by post, sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
How do you guys handle designing a card deck with unequal amounts of card types (i.e. 30 movement cards, 10 attack cards, etc.)? I've been thinking of this game I want to design for a while now involving a deck like that, but the way I've been going about it just seems like random guess work. I guess that's a legit way of doing it, trial and error, but I was wondering if anyone had any pointers or tips for how to optimize a deck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Side Effects posted:How do you guys handle designing a card deck with unequal amounts of card types (i.e. 30 movement cards, 10 attack cards, etc.)? I've been thinking of this game I want to design for a while now involving a deck like that, but the way I've been going about it just seems like random guess work. I guess that's a legit way of doing it, trial and error, but I was wondering if anyone had any pointers or tips for how to optimize a deck. I would probably start by figuring out about what percentage of the time players will want to be playing each type of card, then scaling the card types in the deck around that. Aka if players will want to move 40% of the time, attack 35% of the time, and defend 25% of the time, i’d make a 40-card deck have 16 move cards, 14 attack cards, and 10 defense cards. This won’t be perfect, but will get you at least in the general ballpark, and then you can tweak from there based on playtests. It also gets a little finicky if your system is one where players can do multiple of these actions at once, but the general rule still applies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I would probably start by figuring out about what percentage of the time players will want to be playing each type of card, then scaling the card types in the deck around that. Aka if players will want to move 40% of the time, attack 35% of the time, and defend 25% of the time, i’d make a 40-card deck have 16 move cards, 14 attack cards, and 10 defense cards. This won’t be perfect, but will get you at least in the general ballpark, and then you can tweak from there based on playtests. Thank you so much, this approach helps a ton with an idea that I am working on. Right now it's a kind of Forbidden-esque move and turn over secret cards type of thing, and it really sucks when there's no tension or a turn is super forgiving based on random card layout - I want the players to have to think about the risks every time they move, and it suuuucks when there's zero risk. I think I need to re-scale in favour of more hazards/bad things/challenges is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Make every card do something bad. Now you have perfect control over how much bad happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I made a small change to Behemoth rules, if anyone read them already: damage counters are now placed onto a Behemoth part based on the amount of damage dealt, not the previous 1 counter per attack regardless of damage. If you plan on playing and haven't read the rules, then ignore this because the rules have been changed in the doc linked earlier 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Casnorf posted:Make every card do something bad. Now you have perfect control over how much bad happens. This might actually work. I like the cut of your jib.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
I have big ideas for a four-player CDG about the Third World in the decolonization/Cold War period. Anyway, the board only covers Africa and Asia, so there are many off-board historical events. For instance, there could be a "Détente" event that makes the US player more inclined to work with the USSR player. (The other two players are the PRC and the "Global Solidarity Movement" or something like that.) Anyway from a thematic point of view it does not seem to make sense for the player, who takes the place of a minister but not a supreme commander, to direct events like these. It would make more sense for a player to have some influence over their superiors, but not a way to guarantee what direction the worldwide Cold War will take. Obviously the other extreme is no fun; it would be dumb if a player lost the game out of nowhere due to a decision they couldn't possibly influence. So I am trying to think of good options to have world events take place, with some influence from board state but also a random factor. My best idea so far is to have a second deck of world events (not the kind players play?) that get drawn at random each turn and influence the board for a turn or two. Some of the events would not fire if there are certain board conditions -- perhaps Détente is impossible if there are a couple of active wars on board, for instance. Are there any games that come to mind that have implemented these kind of random events? I would like to check out successful versions of this idea, which I'm sure some people have tried. COIN games are sort of similar, in that the 1st eligible player on a card can almost always execute that event, but I am thinking of certain things that would be out of players' hands entirely. I wonder if that would even be fun, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
So, I've heard someone in another thread here mention there are a lot of MOBA-inspired miniatures games lately. Looking I can see a few examples, such as the batman miniatures game (according to one review) and one I saw on Kickstarter as just two examples. I still haven't played infinity, but I get a MOBA vibe from it based on looks, though it looks like it has generic swarms as a possibility too. I was considering playing with an idea of a more overwatch-like miniatures game (I'm not really familiar with DOTA games, but I get the impression that games like overwatch and TF2 are descendants of the same idea of MOBA) that focuses on very few units with powers (probably customizable) and maybe even have respawns. So instead about moving squads of troops it'd be more about placing units to use their skills (basicly each team controlling an entire 5-9 player (maybe set so teams are the same size, like overwatch/tf2?) overwatch team) I definitely don't want to just retread what's being already done. I test-played it again by myself and I'm struggling to find the interest mechanics to the game. It feels pretty bland so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:So, I've heard someone in another thread here mention there are a lot of MOBA-inspired miniatures games lately. Looking I can see a few examples, such as the batman miniatures game (according to one review) and one I saw on Kickstarter as just two examples. I still haven't played infinity, but I get a MOBA vibe from it based on looks, though it looks like it has generic swarms as a possibility too. The main “draw” of those kind of games (both MOBAs and TF2/OW) is that there are many different characters to choose from, and not only are they unique to play as but they are unique to play against. Finally, the infinite combination of teams provide more unique experiences - playing as Character A with Character B on your team might be completely different from playing Character A with Character C on your team. If you want a game with the same feel as these games, try to capture that feeling - many different characters to play, with their combinations providing interesting experiences and replay value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Krosmaster is kind of that already. It's a small scale character based tactical combat game that's about as simplistic as a video game you'd find on Nintendo DS or something. You have a lot of competition in general so you need some kind of gimmick or exceptional visuals to stand out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I have big ideas for a four-player CDG about the Third World in the decolonization/Cold War period. Anyway, the board only covers Africa and Asia, so there are many off-board historical events. For instance, there could be a "Détente" event that makes the US player more inclined to work with the USSR player. (The other two players are the PRC and the "Global Solidarity Movement" or something like that.) How about drawing multiple events every turn, and allow the players to veto all but two of them. Then randomly pick one of the two remaining events to occur. Alternatively, show the next few events coming up, and let players veto some of the events. But you'd have to make sure the players do not have enough vetoes to prevent everything they'd want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
strangemusic posted:This might actually work. I like the cut of your jib.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Krosmaster is kind of that already. It's a small scale character based tactical combat game that's about as simplistic as a video game you'd find on Nintendo DS or something. Yeah, Krossmaster was another I was aware of and I was thinking is pretty MOBA-like. I played it a few times and didn't like it too much because it felt it really leaned to being luck oriented. Though I'm thinking this would be a little more complex and customization would all take place before hand with more customization options (as opposed to Krossmaster's in-game shop) CodfishCartographer posted:The main “draw” of those kind of games (both MOBAs and TF2/OW) is that there are many different characters to choose from, and not only are they unique to play as but they are unique to play against. Finally, the infinite combination of teams provide more unique experiences - playing as Character A with Character B on your team might be completely different from playing Character A with Character C on your team. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking too the sort of "sidegrades" system of TF2 where you have classes (so far: Sniper, Scout, Support, Hacker (Subset of Support?), Tank and Assault) with different equipment that kind of change how they play ("skates" on scout makes you move faster, but you now have a minimum speed of movement). Not sure if that makes it unique enough to really justify it though. Having a lot of competition is what I was afraid of. I don't want to just make a game that exists already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:How about drawing multiple events every turn, and allow the players to veto all but two of them. Then randomly pick one of the two remaining events to occur. Alternatively, show the next few events coming up, and let players veto some of the events. But you'd have to make sure the players do not have enough vetoes to prevent everything they'd want. That could be an interesting way forward. I think the big trade-off here is between introducing randomness and giving players a feeling of control over what happens, and I can see something like that working well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:Yeah, Krossmaster was another I was aware of and I was thinking is pretty MOBA-like. I played it a few times and didn't like it too much because it felt it really leaned to being luck oriented. I’ve never played Krosmaster so I can’t comment on it much, but I will say that the decision to purchase stuff mid-game is probably smart. Having too many meaningful decisions before a game starts can feel real bad for new players. They don’t know how anything works, so not only are they likely to make poor choices, but they’ll also start the game feeling overwhelmed right off the bat. Letting players pick upgrades mid-game not only lets them make more meaningful choices, but also gives them more time to learn and adjust to mechanics. Try to space out the timing so that once the players get the hang of the systems and their own cards and stuff, you can dole out new items /upgrades for them! If you space them out too, it gives them more time to play with them and figure out how they will interact with each other. I’ve seen a lot of people say that board games suffer from not having tutorials like video games do, but you can absolutely build “tutorials" into your game design in ways like this. Space out your mechanics to give players time to learn them and adjust to them, and it’ll keep from overwhelming your players - thus, you can add in more mechanics and more complicated mechanics later on! And, as always, never be afraid that your idea has been done before! You’ll most likely do it in a unique and original way, and you might even do it better than others! While I’ve never played Krosmaster, I’d probably place money on it being “meh” since it seems to market itself almost purely on figures and art, which usually means pretty lackluster mechanics. I'm sure you can do better than it does!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:Having a lot of competition is what I was afraid of. I don't want to just make a game that exists already. You'll never make anything then. Hundreds of games come out a year now, not to mention everything in the past. Make something you'd like to see, if you find something that's done it already check it out, steal what's good, and trash what's bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:You'll never make anything then. True. I guess I mean very close with little variation to waht I'm imagining. and I guess that's kind of my question: what minitures games are out there that are overwatch/TF2ish? (Very small squads concentrating on unique characters (i.e. high skill, no non-unique "grunt squads")?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:True. I guess I mean very close with little variation to waht I'm imagining. and I guess that's kind of my question: what minitures games are out there that are overwatch/TF2ish? (Very small squads concentrating on unique characters (i.e. high skill, no non-unique "grunt squads")? Pretty much everything Cool Mini does is this. Rum & Bones is one of their latest releases and it's based on MOBAs so you have 5 unique heroes per side, three lanes, minions, and artifacts. So the core gameplay mechanic behind Overwatch and Team Fortress is the ability to swap your hero on the fly from a common pool that everyone can access.. I can't think of a miniatures game that does that so that might be your hook if you want to explore further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:True. I guess I mean very close with little variation to waht I'm imagining. and I guess that's kind of my question: what minitures games are out there that are overwatch/TF2ish? (Very small squads concentrating on unique characters (i.e. high skill, no non-unique "grunt squads")? There certainly are quite a few like that, but implementation is key. Krosmaster, Ninja All Stars, Super Dungeon Explore, maybe Zombicide? all come to mind. Hopefully some other posters can suggest examples of games that are actually good. A lot of these kind of games focus on the icing and skimp heavy on the actual cake - they’re all very top-down design and can be kind of lovely because of that. This kind of game can be a really big trap for a designer; it’s easy to get caught up in designing cool characters and weapons and stuff, but slack off in designing the core to them all. If your core is lackluster, no amount of creative characters will save it. While designing, make some very simple characters to use as a baseline, and make sure the core gameplay is fun. Once it’s fun, it’ll be super easy for you to build creative stuff on top of it. If you can make a better game than those (which definitely isn’t impossible) then you’ll be miles ahead of your competition, in my book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
So I've got an idea fomenting and want to know if there are any similar games I can reference. Roughly, its a duel microgame. Each player starts with identical hands of 9 cards. Each player selects 3 cards in secret and discards them. Then they reveal what they discarded and gain resources (health and energy) based on the discarded cards. If they discarded the exact same 3 cards, the game restarts. The cards they chose not to discard are their actions. The player with the most energy has the first turn, and takes actions until they have less energy than their opponent, who gets to start their turn and this process of passing turns repeats. A player loses when they run out of health, energy, or actions. I anticipate a game would take <5 minutes. I'm most curious about the symmetrical starting hand, asymmetrical choice that determines resources and actions. I know the turn order system isn't unique and am pretty shamelessly borrowing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:So I've got an idea fomenting and want to know if there are any similar games I can reference. Not exactly like it but there's Onitama. It's a Chess-like game where you're moving pawns on a board. Each player has two cards that are visible, with a 5th card in the center. You choose one of your two cards to move your pawns then swap it with the 5th card in the center. Since the hands are symmetrical and you know what your opponent is discarding, you'll want to look into "perfect information" abstract strategy games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Not exactly like it but there's Onitama. It's a Chess-like game where you're moving pawns on a board. Each player has two cards that are visible, with a 5th card in the center. You choose one of your two cards to move your pawns then swap it with the 5th card in the center. Oh yeah, Onitama! I've played it once and it was pretty neat and seemed really elegant. (Possibly to clarify: you don't know what your opponent discarded until you have chosen what to discard as well.) e: a friend talked me into stripping this idea down to its core components and I think I have something testable. Time to mock it up and fail forward... Anniversary fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I've been working on this game for about a while now and I wanted to check to see what you guys thought of it. I'm going to create a prototype over the weekend that I'll hopefully be able to test. I'm imagining it would be a game for 2-4 players, taking roughly a half-hour to complete. Working title: Porteur The basis of this game came from reading about the porteur races that took place in Paris from around 1895 to the 1960's. In these races, newspaper delivery men laden with 30 pounds of newspapers on a special rack on their bicycles would compete to see who could deliver their papers the fastest. Because they got paid per paper delivered, you'd better believe some of these guys got good at it. Real good. In it's heyday it even got the same amount of coverage that the Tour de France did. In the game, players each take the role of a fictional racer competing in a porteur race and are given ten newspaper tokens. They move along a 36 space track using cards that they draw from a 60 card Crowd deck and their goal is to win the race with as many newspaper tokens as possible. The Crowd deck represents the bystanders watching the race and contains two types of cards: Movement cards and Event cards. The movement cards are how the crowd is spurring your racer on. They could cheer, clap, or watch, which allow you to move your game piece three, two, or one space respectively. The event cards represent the people who try to mess with the race and range in what they do. They can hinder movement to one space, someone trying to push you over to lose a turn, etc., and they take immediate effect when played. Players start with a five card hand that they each draw from the Crowd deck. Players can play any amount of event cards from their hand on any player on any turn as well as one movement card on their turn. If a player plays an event card against you, you can cancel it's effect by discarding a newspaper token (distracting the crowd by throwing a newspaper). Once a player is out of tokens, that player cannot cancel any cards. At the end of the round after all players have moved and finished playing any event cards, the players then draw cards from the Crowd deck in order of last place to first place on the track. Each draws a number of cards equal to their position in the race (i.e. fourth place draws four cards, third draws three, etc.), adds one card to their hand and places the rest back on top of the crowd deck. The game continues until the every player has crossed the finish line. Each player then totals up their score. First place is worth 20 points, second is 15, third 10 and fourth 5, and each newspaper token that they crossed the finish line with is worth an additional five points. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Side Effects posted:Players start with a five card hand that they each draw from the Crowd deck. Players can play any amount of event cards from their hand on any player on any turn as well as one movement card on their turn. If a player plays an event card against you, you can cancel it's effect by discarding a newspaper token (distracting the crowd by throwing a newspaper). Once a player is out of tokens, that player cannot cancel any cards. At the end of the round after all players have moved and finished playing any event cards, the players then draw cards from the Crowd deck in order of last place to first place on the track. Each draws a number of cards equal to their position in the race (i.e. fourth place draws four cards, third draws three, etc.), adds one card to their hand and places the rest back on top of the crowd deck. I think maybe you should have points accumulate during the journey.. at midpoints or something? My impression is you've got some fairly extreme rubber-banding (as players in behind get to look at a lot more cards) and it appears also some fairly extreme politics (ie. players can go nuts on each other, something many players will use to prevent anyone from building up too much of a lead), and that's going to mean the players are going to end up staying fairly close together. Close can be fun and exciting, but you can end up with a feeling like "the race doesn't matter until the end". Having some points to pick up mid race might help with this, and make the early game more interesting. As an example, see Camel Up (which is very different, but is a very good game involving racing); there's points at the end, but there's also points all the way through. quote:The game continues until the every player has crossed the finish line. Each player then totals up their score. First place is worth 20 points, second is 15, third 10 and fourth 5, and each newspaper token that they crossed the finish line with is worth an additional five points. The balance seems off here... like, why would you ever throw away 3 newspapers? Just finish last with your 3 extra newspapers, and that's as good as first. Or I might be misunderstanding something? In general, I worry that playing your game well may be a bit "one note"; it seems like it will come down to luck in drawing, and managing other people's perception of how you're doing (by stocking away powerful cards to snatch a lead at the end, and stuff like that). That isn't, like, bad - but there's a lot of games out there like this. Some more diverse skill mechanisms - predicting what other players do (eg. maybe people simultaneously reveal their movement cards, and the person with the highest number moves two while other players move one, creating an economy around eking value out of mediocre cards), having "characters" that work differently from each other (perhaps with their own decks, slow and steady vs "bursty" or "heavy on dirty tricks") and require different approaches, choices of risky routes, whatever... I think just some "more stuff" will make your game attractive to more players over a longer time. "Steampunk Rally" is probably a much more complex game than you're aiming for, but it adds a lot of options while still playing quickly (and is very popular race game). These are just some thoughts - obviously I don't really know your game, just throwing out some ideas and maybe something will grab you as interesting - good luck! VVV: Yeah, sorry for scattershot/confusing editing. I'm a terrible poster in general! jmzero fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I think maybe you should have points accumulate during the journey.. at midpoints or something? My impression is you've got some fairly extreme rubber-banding (as players in behind get to look at a lot more cards) and it appears also some fairly extreme politics (ie. players can go nuts on each other, often meaning they'll prevent anyone from building up too much of a lead), and that's going to mean the players are going to end up staying fairly close together. Close can be fun and exciting, but you can end up with a feeling like "the race doesn't matter until the end". Having some points to pick up mid race might help with this, and make the early game more interesting. As an example, see Camel Up (which is very different, but is a very good game involving racing). Initially I had it set up that you would deposit a number of newspapers at certain points in the race for points at the 1/3 and 2/3 marks and how fast you got there determined the amount of points you got. So if you got there first you could get 2 points per newspaper and everyone else got 1 point, something like that. I'm not sure if what I had is a good mechanic or not, but adding points that you get throughout the race sounds like a good idea. My thought with the event cards was that if a player went crazy then they would kind of be stuck as their only drawing one card per turn, so I guess I envisioned it as a risk/reward thing. Maybe I should scale it back so that a player can play only one event card? Or maybe they aren't needed. I was trying to incentivize players to use their cards by adding the points for their final standing. Initially I had it that there were no points for finishing the race and it just depended on your token score, but if players caught on that they didn't have to actually spend anything to win they would just play movement cards. The point values might be a little high at the moment though, I'm not really sure what would be a good balancing point for that. Edit: Didn't see your edit. Thanks for the ideas! This is still pretty much my first real game I've put thought into so it's good to get feedback like this. Chip McFuck fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Side Effects posted:Porteur I mostly agree with jmzero, but would put stress on adding more variety over adding more content. You have a good idea for a foundation, but the foundation is a little shaky - if you build too much on it now, the whole building will collapse down the line. You obviously might need to add in a few components or mechanics or something to build up this foundation, but add in as little as you possibly can. I think you’ve got a decent skeleton for your game, but it is a little difficult to tell without seeing cards / playing it. A few questions that come to mind: Are movement and event cards pulled from the same deck? If so, what happens if a player ONLY draws event cards, and no movement cards? If they just sit there with the option of using an event, that sounds like it would kind of suck. What order do players draw the cards in? If players put their unwanted cards on top of the deck, the first 2-3 people drawing are getting a pretty crappy selection, with only the last one or two players getting to see new cards. This actually might lead to some cool moments of trying to shunt off cards specific players won’t want, but at that point a more dedicated card draft style of play would probably be more appropriate and natural.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I mostly agree with jmzero, but would put stress on adding more variety over adding more content. You have a good idea for a foundation, but the foundation is a little shaky - if you build too much on it now, the whole building will collapse down the line. You obviously might need to add in a few components or mechanics or something to build up this foundation, but add in as little as you possibly can. Thanks for your critique! The cards are all drawn from the same deck. I thought I had put this in my overview, but looking over it I must have forgotten to: Event cards function as an either/or type of card. It has both effect text and a movement number printed on it. You can use them either as a movement card or as an event card, but if you use it as a movement card then you don't get to use the effect and vice versa. Event cards with higher movement numbers have more severe effects such as skip a turn. The cards are drawn at the end of the turn, with the player in last place drawing first. The player draws a number of cards equal to their standing in the race, chooses one to put into their hand, and then places the rest on the top of the deck. Lets say its a game with four players. The person in fourth draws four cards, chooses one, and places the rest on top of the deck. The person in third draws three cards, chooses one and places the rest on the deck, and so on (placing the cards on the deck isn't a necessity as the players could easily just hand the cards to the next person, I was just using it as a way to signify that the player was done selecting their card). I've never done a draft style card game before, but I'm curious as to how it would work for a racing game. How do you think it would improve the game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Would GMT get mad at me if I lifted the COIN mechanics? I don't even think they trademarked COIN as a name but asymmetrical factions, units that flip underground, and card based events just work too well even if I have to lift their entire process and change the names around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Side Effects posted:I've been working on this game for about a while now and I wanted to check to see what you guys thought of it. I'm going to create a prototype over the weekend that I'll hopefully be able to test. I'm imagining it would be a game for 2-4 players, taking roughly a half-hour to complete. Randomly drawing from a deck seems frustrating, and like it would make me think twice about playing the game. You might consider a market row of some sort, which would give other players information about what's on the table, and make for more interesting decisions. You could do it a little like Ticket to Ride, where there's a market row of cards out there, but then players can push their luck by drawing from the deck. I, personally, tend to really hate "gently caress you" gameplay as well, and it seems like that's mostly what events are. It's hard to balance, but I'd lean towards events always helping a player out, rather than setting other players back. If you've ever play Munchkin or Talisman you might get an idea of what too much antagonistic-yet-random gameplay can get you. Your game actually reminds me a little of Guillotine. Players chop the head off of one noble (lined up next to a paper guillotine) per round, but they have events to move those nobles around for better results. I think the best events are ones that manage the line in interesting ways. The ones that are just straight-up "gently caress target player over" are far less fun and interesting. You might try playing guillotine if you want inspiration on balance / design. edit: VVVVV I also missed that it was a draft. A draft is sort of interesting, I think. I'd experiment with a market row and a draft and see which works better. They're both options for introducing more choices into the game. sector_corrector fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Side Effects posted:Thanks for your critique! Well, I misunderstood how your card drawing works - you already are doing a draft style! Last place picks the first card, passes the group of cards to the next player, and so on until first place gets the card nobody wanted. It’s a draft, with only one pack of cards moving around. As for how it would effect your game, I agree with the rubber-banding that jmzero pointed out earlier. Catch-up mechanics are definitely good, but don’t make them so strong that it feels like you’re being punished for being in first. In fact, be careful with punishing players in general; losing a turn feels really really bad! And the person who played it doesn’t really even get that big of a benefit, it just makes things worse for the poor sap who it got played on. Why not try giving the player that uses the card take an extra turn? Anyways, that’s a bit nitpicky on my part - I’d recommend just working to get a playable version ready and mess around with it! Cut out slips of paper and use pencil or pen to make some cards, then try it out on your own. It may not all be fun, in fact a lot of it might be really boring, but do your best to figure out what is fun about it and what is special about it. Once you know that, you can work towards focusing on that little gold nugget of fun and polishing it as much as you can!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Being a racing game, you 100% need to make your rubberbanding mechanism a drafting system, both to simplify the movement of cards and more importantly to set up an extremely slick pun on the concept of "drafting"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
al-azad posted:Would GMT get mad at me if I lifted the COIN mechanics? I don't even think they trademarked COIN as a name but asymmetrical factions, units that flip underground, and card based events just work too well even if I have to lift their entire process and change the names around. They can get as mad as they like, but to my knowledge general game mechanics are close to impossible to get intellectual property protections for in the U.S. IANAL though, so don't take my word for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:17
|
|
