|
I wouldn't worry about the army part. Thats pretty standard in a lot of wargames. See any wooden block wargame ever, as well as games like Space Empires 4x where you are fighting stacks of things and probably don't know what they are.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
If different troop types require different resources, then you should be able to make educated guesses about what others are building without actually knowing for sure. That sounds pretty fun to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
If you're that worried about it, create a scout unit that can peak at enemy units from a certain distance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:How much hidden information is too much? My worker placement/tile placement game from last year has finally, after 9 months, evolved into something I like. basically, an RTS in a board game by complete accident. Players start with a board that is mostly empty, and 1 'villager' as it were. that villager can explore tiles around them to reveal resources that can be gathered and brought back to the start tile, the town hall. Resources a villager has are public info, until they are dropped off at the town hall where they go behind a screen. In addition, players can have their villagers carry resources *from* the town hall to a different tile (again, public once it leaves the hall) to build a building (which is public info). I think Nephzinho's scout idea is brilliant, but also ... don't think this is a problem. It actually seems really cool, it encourages aggressive play to meet your opponent on the battlefield early so you can adapt to their current composition. If I were to prototype this I'd have each army building produce units with a different card back for the same cost - so you'd have basic garrison that charges $1 for 2 power swordsmen or 1 power archers or w/e. So you know your opponent is sending a force of garrison units, but not what specifically they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
I’ve been playing with the scout idea so far and it has produced some great map situations although I’m worried about having too many stats to keep track of. The card back thing is really neat! I like the idea hat you know for example your opponent is bringing archers but could also bring javelin throwers that are made at the same building but get an advantage against archers. Great ideas to play around with
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Shoutout to nesbit37, your game just showed up in my twitter feed! https://twitter.com/BlueCubeBGs/status/1040183863107051525
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Yay! I am glad the word is getting out. It's very exciting having your first game on kickstarter and seeing so many people supporting it. We're about 75% of our funding goal 3 days in, so we should have no problem hitting goal, I just hope we can get 5-6 stretch goals in as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I’ve been playing with the scout idea so far and it has produced some great map situations although I’m worried about having too many stats to keep track of. The card back thing is really neat! I like the idea hat you know for example your opponent is bringing archers but could also bring javelin throwers that are made at the same building but get an advantage against archers. Great ideas to play around with How many stats are there? I imagine you can keep a cheat sheet of "Power - Toughness - Range" on a card each player keeps for all units as well as on each individual unit token so that when you flip them over the shorthand is there. Unless you have a dozen+ units you shouldn't have to keep track of too much. Unless individual units get individual customized upgrades after they flip back over (unless you kept a card for each unit on the table on the side of the board that was the "character sheet" for that unit). So you'd have 3 face down tiles on the board, 3 face down cards on the side. You attack with one, revealing it is an archer, flipping over the corresponding archer card and applying any XP or other tokens to the card before flipping the unit back down so that the enemies can lose track of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Still working on my hypothetical 18xx+COIN game here and there. i have a buddy involved now and we're trying to flesh out the factions and a few other things and I have two questions to crowdsourc 1) How would you feel if, playing an 18xx with stripped-down rules, that track was represented by a set of sticks instead of hex tiles (as hex tiles cover up useful board info). There'd be one longer stick (centre of one edge, skipping two edges, centre of far edge) for straightaways, one medium length stick (centre of one edge, skipping an edge, centre of the other edge) for gentle curves, and one small one (centre of adjacent edges) for sharp curves. There would be room for all three in a tile (theoretically), but you'd never be allowed to let them cross. Make sense? Seem workable? 2) Do you think it's possible to run a player-faction in a COIN model which is geographically distinct rather than histo-factionally distinct? I have to elaborate on #2 a bit. We have three clear factions - the Metis Nation, the Government of Canada (CPR), and the Hudson Bay Company. We have goals at least thematically for the first three - autonomy, settlement, and wealth. We are looking at Indigenous peoples as a 4th faction, but the problem is that the three major indigenous groups in the event - the Blackfoot/Siksika nation, The Assiniboine/Nakota, and the Cree nations - all had their seperate approaches to a unified goal of survival in the face of scarcity. The problem is modelling a set of seperate (and sometimes mutually hostile) groups as a single player faction. So, my idea is to try to develop the "First Nations" player's experience and strategy around "places" rather than "pieces," as each of these groups have traditional territories which would play out on the map, with territorial ongoing effects kind of like faction abilities, but aimed at spaces, which could be a special activity in some cases (like the Government's "Resettle" in CT). These could, for example, make it so that First Nations pieces give up violence abilities in a certain space, but they retain those abilities elsewhere. The "pieces" really represent the activities in those areas, not the decisions of any political faction a la marching guerillas. Further militarized action could be modelled through allowing the First Nations player to produce resources for other players (modelling individual warrior groups joining Riel's rebellion, e.g.). Does it sound like ther'es something coherent there? I feel like once I break this faction function/goals stage we'll be able to move forward quite a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
I need time to take in #2, but #1 how would you model the limitations that 18xx games normally present in the tile selection? I guess I could also see a components issue with someone bumping the table and all those sticks flying everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I need time to take in #2, but #1 how would you model the limitations that 18xx games normally present in the tile selection? I guess I could also see a components issue with someone bumping the table and all those sticks flying everywhere. Well the limitations would be the number of sticks that the Government player would have available indicates the max resources available for route building (a stick = a yellow tile, essentially), and the rule that the sticks can't possibly cross other (and they can't possibly, anyways, right?) would basically cap out route construction at the options available for green (mostly tiles 23 24 and 25 would be available with these options). The map I have in mind is about 12 hexes E-W and 6 hexes N-S at its widest points - it's a linear route historically, anyway, and the decisions are mostly "Does it go through town to south or town to north". Small cities would be modelled by having track in a hex with a city, and major centres (which will double as ECs) will connect like off-board spaces. Every rule beyond that isn't complicated by the sticks - routes must connect, must have access &c. Players bumping the table would be a problem, but that's not intrinsic to sticks. The specific pieces i have in mind are essentially the fence pieces from Agricola, and i think they're stable enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
I don't know enough about either COIN or 18xx to be useful here. ;_; Just thinking on my designs over the years I figured I'd maybe post about the ones that at least got to the point of having a prototype. Some drafting game I don't remember. Different players had different goals for what to draft that determined point values independently. It was greek myth themed I think? A push-your-luck dungeon crawler. Each class had a custom hand of cards used to overcome encounters (some classes could play multiple cards in a turn, but those had weaker cards, some had built in stats +cards, the druid could shapeshift to change its base stats, stuff like that), whoever got to the end first won. I think first mover won unless they pushed super riskily, and couldn't figure out how to balance it. A WP game where you placed money/points. You could steal money, generate money, clear all spaces. It wasn't very good, but it led directly into my next game. A role selection, bluffing, class based, arena fighter. It used the WP placing money mechanic (but called it energy) onto a personal player board, had you bluff about role which usually determined energy generation / turn order, had unique classes with different damage capabilities and interaction with each others boards/energy. Abandoned due to narrowness of appeal after tons of playtesting. This was my first "serious" game effort and when I think I started posting here most. An abstract hand management fighting game. Went through several iterations and I can never figure out how to make its complexity budget sane (it used like 7 cards per player, but how they interact is a hassle to explain). Initially it used a currency to determine action options and turn order, what this currency was evolved over time, but the complexity budget problem keeps killing it whenever I try to revitalize it. A bluffing based area control game. Talked about this one a ton here. Still working on this but my regular group hates bluffing so its sidelined, although I did make a ton of content for it a couple months ago that sits untested. A Root inspired asymmetric area control/dudes on a map game where you play bugs fighting for dominance of a rotting log. Still really early on, can't figure out scoring mechanisms, have never playtested at intended player count, etc etc. It's a neat idea but I think its getting sidelined for a while. Currently I'm fighting an urge to retroclone Not Alone's style, esp. its hand management and staple on action programming and players all being Alien and Survivor (by having them RPS whenever they bump into each other, debating on how best to do this.) I really think the idea has legs and is something I could playtest easily, but my core group hates bluffing/deduction mechanics so... might be holding off. Though that would mean I have some flexibility with what to work on that might be easier to get players for... I'd be curious in hearing others design histories, if anyone wants to share?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
My first design ever was around 2 years ago. It was a gladiator pvp game where players would place workers in the first phase to train their warrior or forge new equipment for them, then would battle it out in the second phase in simple pvp combat. Losing in combat got you additional workers at the cost of VP. It was ultimately a really clunky design. A quick push your luck card game where people were trying to pick up the biggest score pile. I don’t remember how it worked but it was horrendous. A tile placement worker placement game where players could chain resource pools and buildings together to get some insane benefits as the game went on. It tested well and did surprisingly great at an unpub I attended but it has some core design flaws that I’ve never been able to actually resolve so it remains shelved indefinitely. A pvp combat dice game, first with hero shooter type aspects then more of an arena shooter. Also has tested really well, but just has waaaaay too many variables and components to be something I could produce as a first game. It’s floating around but not at the top of my list My current project is almost an RTS turned board game. Gather resources, construct buildings, and send your armies out to conquer critical points. So far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive and I’m super excited to continue on it. Ive determines it is the first game I am going to complete, even if it doesn’t get published it will be the first game I am 100% finished with rather than abandoning it
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:My first design ever was around 2 years ago. It was a gladiator pvp game where players would place workers in the first phase to train their warrior or forge new equipment for them, then would battle it out in the second phase in simple pvp combat. Losing in combat got you additional workers at the cost of VP. It was ultimately a really clunky design. I've often thought about designing a game like this as well! Inspired I think by Spartacus: Blood & Treachery. I think the appeal for me is moving all the collecting and list building of a miniatures game into the gameplay itself, instead of that being "lonely fun" that happens independently and separately to the battle. Kind of like how Millennium Blades is described as a "CCG simulator", I'd like a "collectible wargame simulator".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
I'm doing some research for my next game. Do any of you have favorites in the dungeon crawl genre that are entirely card driven? Things like Boss Monster, or possibly One Deck Dungeon (which I haven't played)? Any game that is either only cards or nearly only cards where a player or player is exploring a somewhat linear path and comes across various challenges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:I'm doing some research for my next game. Do any of you have favorites in the dungeon crawl genre that are entirely card driven? Things like Boss Monster, or possibly One Deck Dungeon (which I haven't played)? Any game that is either only cards or nearly only cards where a player or player is exploring a somewhat linear path and comes across various challenges. Slay the Spire? Does that count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:I'm doing some research for my next game. Do any of you have favorites in the dungeon crawl genre that are entirely card driven? Things like Boss Monster, or possibly One Deck Dungeon (which I haven't played)? Any game that is either only cards or nearly only cards where a player or player is exploring a somewhat linear path and comes across various challenges. There’s not really a geographical path in Munchkin but otherwise meets criteria
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:I'm doing some research for my next game. Do any of you have favorites in the dungeon crawl genre that are entirely card driven? Things like Boss Monster, or possibly One Deck Dungeon (which I haven't played)? Any game that is either only cards or nearly only cards where a player or player is exploring a somewhat linear path and comes across various challenges. There is a mobile game called Meteorfall: Journeys you may want to check out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Thanks all, I'll check those out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:2) Do you think it's possible to run a player-faction in a COIN model which is geographically distinct rather than histo-factionally distinct? Well there's plenty of precedent for a geographically based faction. Indians (in LoD) and Belgae (in FS) are based in home areas where they can operate more cheaply/effectively. And factions like the Warlords (in ADP) represent broad, heterogenous coalitions rather than a single centralized organization. I don't know how historical it all is but I can totally see the First Nations being fun to play. I don't know how the place-based abilities would work exactly, but I think they could be wrangled into the system. Different special activities representing different cultures' approaches, maybe? I wonder if you really need the 18xx rail-building element. It adds flavor by making the railroad's route flexible, but this could be achieved with more standard COIN pieces. My worry is that the rail system adds a lot of complexity -- if the progress rail construction was instead an off-map track, that would seem like a more COINish approach. Just something to think about. Have you drawn up some sketches of what the map would be like? Even just a mockup would make it easier to visualize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I wonder if you really need the 18xx rail-building element. It adds flavor by making the railroad's route flexible, but this could be achieved with more standard COIN pieces. My worry is that the rail system adds a lot of complexity -- if the progress rail construction was instead an off-map track, that would seem like a more COINish approach. Just something to think about. Having a player decide how to snake their LoC would be dank as hell though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 11:17
|
|
|
 (I may have to cut this off and take it up later) I've based the regions on 3 different geographies: historical territories (Saskatchewan, Assiniboia, Mantitoba, Alberta, and Keewaitin), treaty territories (1 2 4 6 7 - the different coloured sections) and then topography - the Saskatchewan River, mostly. I then made one vertical line because treaty 4 Assiniboia (pink central south) was just way too frickin' big. I intend that every distinct area there is a COIN-style territory (12 + 3 "cities"). Each treaty area will work on a keyword function a la the provinces in Colonial Twilight - "target one treaty territory" etc. The "Cities" (scare quotes because some of them are like pop 300 at this time, but they're economic centres) Fort Gary (bottom right) - essentially staging for the railroad, now Winnipeg; Opaskwayak (top right) - basically the gateway to the northern fur trade - and Battleford (left), the major trade centre in the prairies at the time. I can't find the version where I was overlaying hexes on it, unfortunately, but for rough hex scale, the south-western blue section (Treaty 7 Alberta) was three hexes big (2 across, one below), making the whole map from BC to Winnipeg something like 14 wide. There will be three 18xx-style offboard areas - two passes in the west and one in the east. There will also be some similar offboard areas to the north and to the south, but more on those briefly in a second. Using sticks instead of tiles will make map creation easier. Now there are reasons that I want on-board rail construction 1) I want an Eastern Canada attitude track, and too many tracks is too many tracks (Pendragon's problem imo). 2) I want the government to have to control territory to be able to put track down, and I want the trains to affect the movement of government pieces, which was a major historical factor, as it essentially allowed the government forces to start deploying troops with heavy weapons historically, instead of just RCMP. I want the track construction to be a victory condition. 3) I want the major resource generation activity for the Government, First Nations, and Metis factions to be "running routes" - the FN and M will run fur trade routes on rivers as special activities, and the Government rail construction essentially creates a network of ECs (which other factions can sabotage or leech via investment) for the propaganda rounds. The HBC faction can create trading posts which increase the value of these routes, but which allows the HBC to leech. So early game a powerful trading route will be something like Battleford-Opaskwayak, but after the construction of a few HBC posts a route like Regina-Winnipeg will be more lucrative. 4) I want the government to have to decide between different routes to negotiate #2 and #3 based on board state and revenue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Okay, coming back to a game I haven't touched in years because I can actually make PnP files that aren't a headache. But how would you expand on this rules overview? I've never been a great rules writer, sadly. e: Reading over this has led me to make a few typo fixes. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:Okay, coming back to a game I haven't touched in years because I can actually make PnP files that aren't a headache. But how would you expand on this rules overview? I've never been a great rules writer, sadly. A few questions that I had from reading the rules which might point to places to expand: What does it mean to Exhaust a card? Once the player with the highest Speed/Initiative/not Undead goes, does it go to the player with the next highest? Or some other order - e.g. clockwise? Do you draw cards from a deck or are they all always in your hand? (If Health and Energy are known, maybe they could be placed in front of you). Is it obvious that a card's Cost is always in Energy? (Is it always in Energy?) --- Would you be able to post some examples of the cards? That might help understand the game and where the rules fit in to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:A few questions that I had from reading the rules which might point to places to expand: Awesome, these are exactly the kinds of questions I was hoping for! Some of it is elsewhere in the rules, and figuring out how to cohesively put it all together is a big problem I have from a rules presentation perspective. Exhausts definition:   I think having this be defined elsewhere works, but if someone has a suggestion of how to work it in to that quick rules summary, I'd appreciate it. Turn order is... wow that was a huge oversight. This is what I have in my detailed round flow rules write up, and is how its intended to be, as such I changed it in the quick summary too: "Then the player with the highest Speed who has not yet taken a turn, takes a turn."  Thanks so much for catching this! Hmm. As for cards, the Tactics cards are a hand, the ability cards are a tableau. There's no deck and you never get rid of either. That said, its a very good question and one I've gotten before and, it seems, is one I'm having trouble answering. So cost is now explicitly printed in the top corner of Ability cards. It is always Energy. Though card text could have drawbacks in it, it wouldn't technically be a cost. And yeah, I can definitely link some cards. I'm not happy about the graphic design and these are very, very early prototypes of course. An Ability Card.  Top center is name. Below that is flavor. Top Right is Cost. Bottom Center is Text. A Class Card.  Top center is name. To the right of that is Health, to the right of that is Energy. Center is the list of Ability cards belonging to the class. Below that is the class Text. A Tactic Card.  Top center is name. Top Right is Speed. Bottom Center is text.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
I don’t know if I missed it but I read a couple of times...how do I get cards that stay on the board out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I don’t know if I missed it but I read a couple of times...how do I get cards that stay on the board out? That's definitely my bad. This is a very good/important question - I'll think on how to make it more clear. If anyone has suggestions they would be much appreciated.  e: huh, maybe changing it too "Setup Each player chooses a Class card. Take Health, Energy, and Ability cards as indicated by the Class card and put them into play. Take a set of Tactics cards and put them into your hand. " During Setup you pick a class card (ex. the middle card I posted, Necromancer). The middle text box tells you which Abilities you take (these are the cards that stay on the board and Exhaust/Restore), I need to be more explicit about this, but when you take these cards you start the game with them "in play". This is in contrast to the Tactic cards, which are identical for both players and you're given a "hand" of, they don't Exhaust/Restore and return to your hand after you resolve them. I'll try and take a gameplay pic shortly and maybe that'll help convey intended meaning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
I got struck with an idea yesterday that I think might be fun to explore. I’m trying to turn an old fashioned side scrolling beat em up into a board game. So far I’ve kinds broken down the game like this 2-4 players, each character has different stats and a few special abilities on their player sheet The goal is to get through X stages without running out of lives. Possible competitive co-op game where you are competing for most points while also trying to make it to the end Each stage has places for breakable objects, which are randomizes tokens that drop items from a deck. Health items, weapons, extra points, etc. Enemies are dealt out from a randomized deck by stage. The cards have some AI component to them. My concerns are: not sure how to do combat. Feels like it should probably be more determined by actions not dice. Maybe an energy based system? It could be boring? Basically the entire game will be puzzle combat. Could be interesting with the pvp aspect in there for points though. Players have to work together but not to the point where they help too much. Like they could pick up an item an ally may need to screw them over for points
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Interesting. Yeah, how you want to do the combat sounds like it would be significant, but the core idea sounds sound. I think if you come up with a neat combat system the game would be solid. What player count would you want to accommodate? As I could see puzzle combat getting unwieldy at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Hello goons, you may know me from posting my bad game ideas constantly in the Boardgames Discord. One of those bad game ideas was kind of a action-programming deckbuilder that I finally got around to writing some rules for yesterday. They're pretty raw, and a lot of the details haven't gotten sussed out yet (much less things like cards), but I figure I'd post it here to see if at least it makes sense on the high concept level, and maybe crowdsource some ideas. Here's the link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Pseudoscorpion posted:Hello goons, you may know me from posting my bad game ideas constantly in the Boardgames Discord. Otherwise seems solid, if a little confusing because there's not any content to refer too, which is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:Interesting. Yeah, how you want to do the combat sounds like it would be significant, but the core idea sounds sound. I think if you come up with a neat combat system the game would be solid. I want to try and avoid standard dice roll combat. I'm thinking of trying something like the following: Start with X cards, based on your character. Cards all have an ENERGY rating on them. You can pick up a number of cards when you run out, but you have to lose cards permanently with energy equal to the cards you pick up. So you could pick up 5 cards that have 1 ENERGY on them but you have to lose a total of 5 ENERGY worth of cards. likewise you can pick up a single really strong card and only lose a single weaker card, but then immediately have to regain cards after that next turn. All cards come back at the end of a stage Players can pick up health/energy/weapon pickups from the breakable objects scattered around the stage. These may be new cards they add to their hand (weapon, one time use) or energy to pick up more cards for free. Between stages, there can be a small shop where players are able to pick up cards to add to their hand, based on some currency (money or 'score') to get stronger. e; I wrote all of that and realized I didn't actually...figure out how combat worked. Just a framework within which I want combat to work. Oops. Kashuno fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Oct 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
I've kept working on this game idea, though content wise the prototype is painfully stable and I'm wary of generating new content until I can get some playtesters who are fairly experienced. I've gotten it down to <5 minute rules explanation, with games taking 5-10 minutes per player. Here's the description I'm using for now: [Game Name] is a fast paced, 2-4 player, competitive dark fantasy game of redemption through ritual combat. You play as those the Emperor has deemed Pariah. Why isn’t important; maybe you were a thief, a murderer, a heretic, maybe you just looked the part. When brought before the Emperor for judgement you demanded to fight for your freedom in the arena and were mercifully allowed. As you enter the arena you know: one of you will live to fight for your freedom another day, the other will find freedom in death. The Emperor’s mercy truly knows no bounds. Kashuno posted:e; I wrote all of that and realized I didn't actually...figure out how combat worked. Just a framework within which I want combat to work. Oops. I like it! What's the difference between Regain and Pickup would be my only question. e: Oh, is that an edit where you said cards come back at the end of a stage? Right on!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I've kept working on this game idea, though content wise the prototype is painfully stable and I'm wary of generating new content until I can get some playtesters who are fairly experienced. I've gotten it down to <5 minute rules explanation, with games taking 5-10 minutes per player. That is a heck of a hook  I'd be down to play a game with that hook
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:That is a heck of a hook drat, thanks! I've never gotten far enough to feel right writing up a formal hook like this, but I'm glad this one works, at least for ya. I'm a little iffy themeing it as dark fantasy, because I feel that generally implies more ... skeevy (?) than what I would ever want to write, but I think it best represents the setting I want to go for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
I feel like I’m iterating in this idea pretty quickly. In thinking about it some more, ultimately all a beat em up game really is is a wave based combat game but with a more difficult each time wave of bad guys. As such it may make sense to set a standard map with increasingly difficult waves of enemies to fight. The enemy AI would need some work, but it could be fun. Instead of stages, it would be waves. The shop moves to be present on the map as a location, so players could go there mid combat to get items. Players would compete with each other for the highest score but work together to survive the coming waves of enemies
Kashuno fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Oct 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
What if the game was all about card placement in relation to others? Think Triple Triad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:What if the game was all about card placement in relation to others? Think Triple Triad. Been a hot minute since I played Triple Triad. Perfect excuse to boot up ff14 and relearn the rules 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Been a hot minute since I played Triple Triad. Perfect excuse to boot up ff14 and relearn the rules I don't necessarily mean similar rules, in was just using it as an example of what I meant by relative card placement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:I don't necessarily mean similar rules, in was just using it as an example of what I meant by relative card placement. I'm not sure how I would automate it from an AI perspective for the enemies that are on the board. Against real opponents it makes sense to me how this could work, but it seems like it'll be tough to translate the idea to enemies. An interesting idea though..hmm
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 12:48
|
|