|
Lovely!! is it bee lives verb or plural noun?
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
Thanks all!silvergoose posted:Lovely!! Its the plural noun, though I have had plenty of people do the Bee Lives (as in "It Lives!") joke.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:Yay, I have box art! My illustrator turned this in recently and my graphic designer had a quick turn around on it. This is the game I have the booth at Gen Con for and the one we are going to have a pin at the convention for as well. What do you think? This owns.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
I've got my graphic designer running in overdrive to get stuff ready so we can get a couple printed prototypes in time for Origins. Here is the playerboard for the game, what do you think? I know its busy, but its based off of the no-art version of the player board we have gotten a lot of positive feed back on from playtesters (also below) 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
It's a game about bees. I'd be disappointed if the board WASN'T busy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
It looks fine (but busy indeed) except the hexes with triple values, that's just headache - inducing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Osmosisch posted:It looks fine (but busy indeed) except the hexes with triple values, that's just headache - inducing. Maybe have the 1-whatever numbers semi transparent in the back layer
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Yeah, we added those extra numbers to the hexes based on player feedback. Will see if they survive to the final version.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Okay listening to some people talk about games (Cataclysm specifically) has given me an idea for a totally not original system for a game. I'm still trying to decide on what to build on this foundation and right now I'm thinking some sort of scaling character battler? Because what else do I design? Game is one continuous turn: -You seed an Action Bag with Action Tiles determined by characters at game start -Draw an Action Tile and resolve it, all other players may make a Minor Activation after this Tile resolves in seating order, clockwise -Continue drawing and resolving Action Tiles in this way until a victory condition is reached Minor Activations: -Take an Energy -Pay Energy to put a Tile into the bag, depending on the Tile -Character specific things Tiles are character specific - you pay for them when you put them into the bag and then get their effect when drawn. So for example you might have a Tile like this: Cost 4 Deal 9 Damage. Or Cost 0 Gain 4 Energy. I normally avoid designs where it comes to Post-Decision Randomness, which this decidedly is, but I think it should make for an interesting game with a decent little flow. Also I might be thinking too small with this design, but I'm still curious to hear thoughts on it. e: I don't think the example Tiles are indicative of what a game using this should look like. Still thinking on what it should look like. Anniversary fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Toying around with a game based on my feelings that the spirit of competitive Pokemon (the video games) isn't really matched anywhere else. More spontaneous than a full strategy game, but with a bit more opportunity to play a long con than in something like BattleCon. I'm actually literally prototyping it with Pokemon because that's making it easier to grok, both for myself toying with ideas, and for the playtesters I've gotten interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Toying around with a game based on my feelings that the spirit of competitive Pokemon (the video games) isn't really matched anywhere else. More spontaneous than a full strategy game, but with a bit more opportunity to play a long con than in something like BattleCon. Desire to know more intensifies! Care to go into any detail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:Desire to know more intensifies! For example, your team might be Starmie, Exeggutor, Golem, and Tauros. You've got Starmie out. You could use A1, Thunderbolt, A2, Blizzard, or A3, Psychic. Or you could switch to one of your others. Your opponent could use any of their three attacks, or switch. They're leading with Zapdos. You could switch to Golem to steal his momentum, go for Blizzard and fish for a critical, or try to predict a switch to his own Starmie and try to check it with Tauros. What will you do, what will your opponent do? So far, conceptually, not too different from BattleCon, but it differs in a key aspect: Teambuilding. I counted out card quantities, and I can fit in two versions each of twelve different Pokemon into a 56-card two-player starter set, as well as 14 items. The versions can have different HP and Speed (EV Training), Attacks (duh), and even resistances/immunities (an abstraction of some abilities like Lightning Rod, Water Absorb, and Thick Fat). You don't know what set or even what item your opponent is using until it's relevant and flipped face-up, so in team comp, you have to be able to cover your bases, but also have a team plan. Maybe they're actually using the Starmie with Thunder Wave and your attempted check is just gonna result in a crippled Tauros. And items add another dimension of customization. Is their Zapdos holding a Choice Scarf, and able to outspeed your Starmie and smack it down with Thunderbolt? No way of knowing until it happens. I.am really struggling to find a flavor that isn't just "Pokemon with the serial numbers filed off" once the concept is proven, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
drat that sounds interesting! Looking forward to more as it develops. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:I.am really struggling to find a flavor that isn't just "Pokemon with the serial numbers filed off" once the concept is proven, though. For some reason, I immediately thought of Three Kingdoms era China; the fighters are generals, assassins etc. Think Hero, Crouching Tiger, Dynasty Warriors. Could theme some items around soldiers, like units attached to the general, elements are like "Cavalry, Spear, Artillery" etc Or superheroes teams (eh), Power Rangers, or even like a Street Fighter style brawler (Character switching from Alpha on up). Sandwich Anarchist fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Basically anything that fights works. Team fighters, monsters, mechs, whatever. I'd say that'll probably influence just how much you can BLATANTLY take from pokemon though - it's pretty easy to justify 18 different types to slap onto monsters, but it's a lot weirder when applied to human beings. Like sure there could be things like Subtly, Brawling, etc., and probably stretch it to a dozen such things but yeah. Not that this is necessarily bad since you'd definitely not want to make
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd probably just say go with monsters or whatever. You could probably go with wizards or something? Making it very clear what elements are strong/weak to what is important. I would also maybe advise against TOO much customization. Focus on what experience you want to have, rather than just copying Pokémon. For example, trying to predict the speed and priority of attacks is cool! But if there's multiple versions of each monster with slightly different stats with items that further change those stats, then it's that much harder to predict what the opponent will use. Eventually it can reach a point where the number of options are too many to keep track of, so screw it I'm just going to stop trying and do my own thing and hope it works out. I would maybe say keep one version of each monster, and keep items fairly limited. If you want a lot of the focus to be on predicting what the enemy will do, you need to make all the information clear and easy to parse fairly quickly. Otherwise it'll either cause turns to drag on, or cause players to burn out and ignore the predictive aspects. You can have hidden items and such, but try to keep the number of them small so that there's not too many unknown factors for players to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
I definitely am open to the idea of cutting down on the actually-hidden information. There's 10 types currently, and every monster can have up to 3 weaknesses, resistances, and immunities (each), but yeah, that's getting a little too busy. So cutting the cruft there is probably not a bad idea. I might be able to keep some of the hidden variation as long as each monster follows at least BASIC rules, borrowing an idea from the TCG. IE, water types are almost always weak to either electric or grass, and resistant to fire, barring a few unique exceptions (like having no weakness), so even if you don't know the exact specs of Starmie, knowing it's something fast, and water, that probably has a weakness to either grass or electricity, will hopefully cut down on the AP problem. A couple quick hammered-out examples with bullshit numbers just to elucidate the concept: Starmie, Bulky Attacker Water | 100 HP | 100 Speed Surf - Water - 60 Damage Psyshock - Psychic - 60 Damage Recover - Psychic - Heal 40 HP Weak: Grass | Resist: Fire | Immune: None OR Starmie, Boltbeam Sweeper Water | 80 HP | 110 Speed Blizzard - Water - 80 Damage, 1/6 chance to miss, 1/6 chance to Paralyze target (Frozen was always broken so gently caress it) Thunderbolt - Electric - 50 Damage, 1/6 chance to Paralyze target Thunder Wave - Electric - Paralyze target Weak: Electric | Resist: Fire | Immune: None The first one's weak to Grass because grass and bug, while the second one's weak to Electric, somewhat simulating that even though Water and Ice are represented as the same type, one provides good coverage against Grass. And a few simple example items... Choice Scarf Item - Persistent Holder has +50 Speed, and infinite [Move Locked]. Leftovers Item - Persistent At the end of each turn, holder heals 10 HP. Life Orb Item - Persistent Holder's attacks have +20 Damage. Whenever holder deals damage, they lose 10 HP. Edit: Another idea for how to handle switching. There's only one Switch card. After both actions are confirmed, switches are revealed first, and carried out, THEN attacks are revealed. That way, you can use an arbitrarily large team without an arbitrarily large hand. Just need to decide how to handle it when both players switch simultaneously, because whoever switches second has a HUGE advantage. Edit2: Just using a generic "magic and wizards" theme sounds incredibly dull, honestly. It needs to be something at least a little more interesting than that, I want this to have draw besides just "nah man the rules are actually really good". girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jun 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Edit2: Just using a generic "magic and wizards" theme sounds incredibly dull, honestly. It needs to be something at least a little more interesting than that, I want this to have draw besides just "nah man the rules are actually really good". Stick with monsters, but with a mad science genetic engineering theme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Stick with monsters, but with a mad science genetic engineering theme. Hell yeah, go full campy frankenstein with it
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Thought: Instead of Fighter and Item, it's the animal's front half and back half. Or just otherwise a two-part creature. Example: My first fighter is a Vampire... with Lobster Claws! Or is that too monkeycheese?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
e. wrong thread
CommonShore fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jun 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Thought: Instead of Fighter and Item, it's the animal's front half and back half. Or just otherwise a two-part creature. I'd probably be turned off by that theme personally, but my tastes certainly aren't universal. I think fighters in the Street Fighter / fighting game sense could be a cool theme, though I agree faux-europe fantasy with wizards not so much. Regarding the specific example you game with Starmie, to be honest I don't really see why you wouldn't just make those two different monsters entirely unless you're worried about species clause (which you can definitely design around, or simply not care). Even if you were using the Actual Literal Pokemon License, you're making a board game, not a TCG money sink, and you could almost certainly make a Suicune who functions identically to your Bulky Starmie (it even gets Extrasensory and as far as I can tell your game has not STAB) or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I'd probably be turned off by that theme personally, but my tastes certainly aren't universal. I think fighters in the Street Fighter / fighting game sense could be a cool theme, though I agree faux-europe fantasy with wizards not so much. My assumption is that e.g. both Starmies have an identical back that shows a Starmie, so when your team starts out face-down your opponent can see you have a Starmie but they don't get to see what build you're using until you reveal an action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:My assumption is that e.g. both Starmies have an identical back that shows a Starmie, so when your team starts out face-down your opponent can see you have a Starmie but they don't get to see what build you're using until you reveal an action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Exactly. I'm not inseparable attached to that mechanic, but I do like it. I like it too, my only comment would be to not tie yourself too much to doing every monster the same way. You can play around with the mechanic by having different monsters do different things with it. You might have some strong but predictable monsters with only 1 build, or some weaker but versatile ones with 3 or even 4. Even within the standard 2-build range you can play around some; I don't think you want to make every variant build as transformative as the Starmie example. You might have a generic sweeper type that has 2 very similar builds with different coverage moves but identical weaknesses. Or a monster that has one strong build and one noticeably weaker build that hits back at its usual counters. There's a risk when you give your players too much of a dynamic range in their options where everything just winds up feeling very random and overwhelming; including some simpler options should help cut down on the learning curve and AP problems, but I think it may actually help players feel like their decisions are more meaningful rather than less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Maybe have players draft their monsters at game start as well, so you have a way to pick counters and team build against your enemy. Think LoL or Dota
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Oh, a MOBA theme might be interesting if I can make it work. Might overcomplicate things, I'd need to come up with an elegant way to represent lanes and such. Unrelated idea: Short-ish story game that simulates a fantasy novel or series of fantasy novels, somewhat similar to how Fiasco works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Oh, a MOBA theme might be interesting if I can make it work. Might overcomplicate things, I'd need to come up with an elegant way to represent lanes and such. I hadn't even thought about using moba systems, I was just using them as an example of the draft idea. You might have something there; your customization could be items, and you can obtain them as a game goes on to build counters and exploit weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
I'm still chugging along at that game I shared a while ago. For the longest time I was unhappy with the resource system - it just felt somewhere between too impactful and too tacked on. So I ditched it almost completely. Instead on the end of your turn you gain an Energy that lasts until the end of your next turn. You can spend if to play a powerful card, or to play a powerful buff. Should make for some interesting decision space. (its basically Epic's system, if a little more restrictive.) That said. I'm now a little dice-y with how I'm using the hand/deck as a resource. The mechanics make it so hand is for bluffing/actions while deck is for future potential actions and life. I think it plays fine, but I've got some conflicted advice and opinions on how it feels. CodfishCartographer posted:I think one of my favorite card game mechanics comes from how Netrunner deals damage. If you take damage, you randomly discard that many cards from your hand. Take two damage, randomly discard one card, then randomly discard another. If ever you take more damage than you have cards in hand, you lose. I just started getting into Netrunner and I totally get your appreciation of this aspect. It's such a flavorful and interesting mechanical way to make you care about your life, your hand, and damage. PMush Perfect posted:Unrelated idea: Short-ish story game that simulates a fantasy novel or series of fantasy novels, somewhat similar to how Fiasco works. Interesting idea. Still need to play Fiasco, but I could see this being a lot of fun. Sandwich Anarchist posted:I hadn't even thought about using moba systems, I was just using them as an example of the draft idea. You might have something there; your customization could be items, and you can obtain them as a game goes on to build counters and exploit weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
I've hammered out some super basic proxies and rules for the MOBA version of the game, and I'll probably be doing some solo playtesting tonight in TTS. Or really, what's turning into a new game with the same "engine". (I'm calling said engine A3 as a working title, but I wanna find something better. Maybe a cool backronym.) No idea on the game name, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
I got a one-off professional test print in for a game I've been developing for a while, and it's super cool to see the stuff I've been designing/testing with foam board done up all fancy. [Obviously this is all a beta product] 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I got a one-off professional test print in for a game I've been developing for a while, and it's super cool to see the stuff I've been designing/testing with foam board done up all fancy. I like this art style  On a different note, I've been kinda distracted by a lot going on in my life this year and haven't put my design hat on in a bit. I had an older idea for a game that had never really gotten off the ground, but going back to it now I think it may have some potential. My concern is that is just seems too simplistic quote:
There would be terrain of some kind on the map, game ends when X total kills happen. Straightforward, quick to the action, and doesn't waste time with pages of rules. I just don't know if there is room for meaningful decisions in that simple of a system, or if it's oversimplified to the point of just rolling dice for nothing
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
It sounds fairly fun and simple to me! I'd see if you can design different characters with different abilities or unique aspects to add some more variety. You might need to add in one or two other design levers to tweak though. Maybe some kind of objective on the map to earn VP? Or maybe different characters have different dice pools or health values? Also if terrain is A Thing, maybe there should be some range calculations or make character orientation matter, but that's starting to get into more fiddly rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Edit2: Just using a generic "magic and wizards" theme sounds incredibly dull, honestly. It needs to be something at least a little more interesting than that, I want this to have draw besides just "nah man the rules are actually really good". If you wanted to stick very close to the inspiration material, we're working on a collection of open source monsters called Tuxemon that you'd be very welcome to use (although most are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licensed, meaning you'd have to release your work under the same licence - might not be for you). Otherwise I really like the idea of Vampire WITH LOBSTER CLAWS! Cow WITH LASERBEAM EYES! etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:It sounds fairly fun and simple to me! I'd see if you can design different characters with different abilities or unique aspects to add some more variety. You might need to add in one or two other design levers to tweak though. Maybe some kind of objective on the map to earn VP? Or maybe different characters have different dice pools or health values? Also if terrain is A Thing, maybe there should be some range calculations or make character orientation matter, but that's starting to get into more fiddly rules. Yeah I'm used to building these bigger, more complex games with lots of fiddly rules but for this I want it to kinda have that arena shooter feel ya know? Quick, bloody, but still has to have some actual decision making in there. Right now there is a bit of decision making around who to target, when to recover, when it makes sense to pickup a new weapon, or when to trigger a weapon's special/secondary fire, but I'm worried that isn't quite enough. I'm not positive how terrain will work right now. I'm thinking there *may* be a possibility to make this have a bit of a tile placing mechanic (Give tiles the spots to pick up weapons, some health packs, etc) but I'm not sure how that is well balanced yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Stupid Legacy game ideas: - Superhero game where the legacy stuff comes from all the crazy nonsense that happened in previous runs/storylines. - "Roguelike" with metaprogression but also more challenges - Something IDK I have that Itch. My main issue is that I really like making solo games but if you're going to play a solo legacy game, why not just... play a video game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
Yeah I don’t think I would play a single player legacy board game most of the time. Part of the fun of legacy for me is building a unique experience with a group. Roguelike as a legacy game seems an interesting take
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
I’ve been mulling over ideas to spice up that FPS idea without making it too complicated. PVP is not interesting when it’s down to just rolling some dice and hoping, because you have full information (what gun, dice, and health your opponent has) and I’ve come up with a few different ideas. 1) player health and dice pools are kept behind a screen. Guns still stay public info. 2) everything stays public info, but add a secondary deck in addition to the gun deck that is special items. Medkits, armor, self boosts, grenades, etc. players could pick these up on pickup spots on the map and keep a small hand of them, using them for combat surprises (you go in to shoot someone who you think has a weak pistol, but they throw down a grenade they have instead type of stuff) Personally I think the second idea is much more interesting and chaotic; dice and health pools being public give players more info on the enemy which helps foster decisions
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
How about hidden/simultaneous movement? Everyone assigns their moves in secret, then reveal and move all at once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
You could also try something similar to Kemet's card system to add some hidden info and guessing at player priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 17:18
|
|