Skip to Content

Movement Mechanic

16 replies [Last post]
phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013

Everyone pretty much agrees that it costs 1 AP to enter a cavern from a passageway. We need to decide on how to implement movement among differenent passageway sections:

Ok here are the options I see thus far:

My suggestion was to pay 1 AP to enter a passageway. You may move along that passageway for free as long as you'd like / able to. When you leave the passageway to enter a new one, you pay 1 AP to enter this new passageway.

Sedjtrolls suggestion was to use passage 'nodes'. A node is a section of COMPLETED passageway between a cavern and another cavern, a cavern and a junction, or a junction and another junction. His definition of a junction is an intersection tile where you have the possibility of moving down another node (remember nodes have to be completed passageways). Basically you pay 1 AP to travel from a node to another node, from a node to a cavern, or from a cavern to a node. Seth, did I get this right?

Doho suggests paying 1 AP to enter every junction. I'm not sure if he specified whether the junctions other passageways actually had to lead to anything in order for it to be still considered a junction. I think Scurra was of the same school.

Does that basically sum up everyone's position? If so I want to go ahead and vote on it. If not shout out now so we can make sure your position is clarified.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Movement Mechanic

Darkehorse wrote:

Sedjtrolls suggestion was to use passage 'nodes'. A node is a section of COMPLETED passageway between a cavern and another cavern, a cavern and a junction, or a junction and another junction. His definition of a junction is an intersection tile where you have the possibility of moving down another node (remember nodes have to be completed passageways). Basically you pay 1 AP to travel from a node to another node, from a node to a cavern, or from a cavern to a node. Seth, did I get this right?

Well, basically right, except maybe terminology. All these words we're using are sort of interchangeable :)

So yes, I had said that the movement would be from space to space, like in the typical board game (monopoly for example). However the "spaces" are defined by the tile features. I had said that a COMPLETED passageway (one with a 'junction' or a 'cavern' at each end) would count as a space.

This presents the problem that you cannot, technically, enter an incomplete passage because it wouldn't be a space. I'd like to ammend my previous definition of a space to include INCOMPLETE passages as well.

SO, any passage tile (the ones with the straight passages or simple turns) would be part of a space. The neighboring tile would also be part of that same space (assuming it is neighboring on the side where the passage goes).

That sounded confusing, let me try again. I know Darkie hates this, but think about Carcassone for a moment. Anything that would terminate a road in Carcassone would define a boundary for a space in Spielunker- wheather that road would be worth 2 points or 10.

So you move from space to space for the cost of 1AP each.

Kapish?

- Seth

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Movement Mechanic

I'm suggesting what Sedj is proposing, just in different words. Everytime you enter a cave, or enter a new pathway (from a cave, or crossing a junction on and intersection) it caosts 1 AP.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Movement Mechanic

One of the problems with this one is that without seeing a "typical" tile layout, it's hard to judge if there will be too many junctions within the passageway/cave system to make paying 1AP for each of them too expensive.
So I'm willing to go with the "pay 1AP for each junction" position but I reserve the right to completely change my mind if it becomes clear that this is too expensive for the number of junctions that generally appear :-)

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Movement Mechanic

^^^
Sounds good. (same as Scurra)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
OK

I think I'll go with Sedj's and ultimately everyone's method for movement. I also reserve the right to change my mind about this if I feel this method makes movement too tedious and slow. :D

Let's move on!

-Darke

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Movement Mechanic

So... in Darke's examples towards the end of the Assumptions & Issues: Take 2 thread, how many APs would it take to move from the cave on the far left to the cave on the far right?

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
answer

FastLearner wrote:
So... in Darke's examples towards the end of the Assumptions & Issues: Take 2 thread, how many APs would it take to move from the cave on the far left to the cave on the far right?

Well the first example with just the two caves across from each other horizontally, it would take 2 AP; one to enter the passageway and one to enter the new cave. With the 2nd example where there was a third tunnel that split to the south, it would cost three; One to enter the passageway, one to leave the first passageway and onto the second passageway, and a third to leave the second passageway to enter the new cavern.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: answer

Darkehorse wrote:
FastLearner wrote:
So... in Darke's examples towards the end of the Assumptions & Issues: Take 2 thread, how many APs would it take to move from the cave on the far left to the cave on the far right?


Under my latest suggestion it would cost 5AP to get across from the left cave to the right. (Only 4AP from the left cave to the bottom one in the second example).

So you stand in the actual passageway, but not in the actual intersection... in those 4-way tiles there are 4 possible passageways to stand in.

On the other hand, the original suggestion of traversing a 'completed passageway' for 1AP would support 2AP to get from left cave to right cave (3AP in second example because a completed passageway intersects), but the problem with that is ist's not always easy to tell if the intersection is from a completed passage or an incomplete one.

- Seth

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Movement Mechanic

I definitely prefer Darke's suggestion -- I don't want people pussyfooting around in the passages between caves. Dealing with the complexity of the cave system should take a backseat to just doing some exploring, imo.

Rather than worrying about complete and incomplete passages, how about just a simple "Travelling from cave to passage or vice versa uses 1 AP and turning at an intersection uses 1 AP"? Seems simple and effective, and still provides some nice tactical issues.

It also prevents people from playing intersections as obstacles, something that is pretty lame in terms of a simulation, imo.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Movement Mechanic

FastLearner wrote:

Rather than worrying about complete and incomplete passages, how about just a simple "Travelling from cave to passage or vice versa uses 1 AP and turning at an intersection uses 1 AP"? Seems simple and effective, and still provides some nice tactical issues.

That pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my idea. Perhaps we *should* have a vote...

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Movement Mechanic

FastLearner wrote:

Rather than worrying about complete and incomplete passages, how about just a simple "Travelling from cave to passage or vice versa uses 1 AP and turning at an intersection uses 1 AP"?

Sounds good to me.

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Movement Mechanic

FastLearner wrote:

It also prevents people from playing intersections as obstacles, something that is pretty lame in terms of a simulation, imo.

Hey, I want to make it clear that I wasn't ever suggesting that this should be encouraged. But I can see circumstances under which the possibility might be needed - again, it all depends on things like "cave capacity", the passage/cave balance and the need to have multiple routes.
I suspect this one may need to be left slightly open - I'll certainly take the consensus opinion, but suspect that it may need revising once people are actually playtesting the thing!

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Movement Mechanic

Scurra wrote:
FastLearner wrote:

It also prevents people from playing intersections as obstacles, something that is pretty lame in terms of a simulation, imo.

Hey, I want to make it clear that I wasn't ever suggesting that this should be encouraged. But I can see circumstances under which the possibility might be needed - again, it all depends on things like "cave capacity", the passage/cave balance and the need to have multiple routes.
I suspect this one may need to be left slightly open - I'll certainly take the consensus opinion, but suspect that it may need revising once people are actually playtesting the thing!

Sorry, I didn't even see where you had noted that intersections might be used as obstacles. I didn't mean to call anything you wrote "lame" -- I actually just thought of the possibility on my own and though of it as lame.

Sorry I missed it.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Movement Mechanic

Scurra wrote:
...it all depends on things like "cave capacity"...

Personally, I think there shouldn't be a "maximum capacity" in a cave, or even in a passageway. I don't ercall if I said that when the discussion was more lively about it. I don't see a reason to worry about who's allowed to stand where- just define it relative to the pieces (i.e. you can be in a passageway or a cavern) and that's it.

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Movement Mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:
Scurra wrote:
...it all depends on things like "cave capacity"...

Personally, I think there shouldn't be a "maximum capacity" in a cave, or even in a passageway.

If we were going for a full-scale "simulation" then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But in a game I think there do need to be some tactical opportunties - 'do I move in here to stop player X from being able to claim a discovery chit?' and so on.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Guys, guys, guys!

Scurra wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
Scurra wrote:
...it all depends on things like "cave capacity"...

Personally, I think there shouldn't be a "maximum capacity" in a cave, or even in a passageway.

If we were going for a full-scale "simulation" then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But in a game I think there do need to be some tactical opportunties - 'do I move in here to stop player X from being able to claim a discovery chit?' and so on.

As I said before, we REALLY need to hold off on discussing this for now. And it's not bc I don't think it should be discussed at all, but I really think we should iron out the other details of the game first. Scurra, you keep mentioning this and someone keeps responding. I think it really takes us off track. I promise we will get back to this and discuss it thoroughly and vote, but for now, let's keep it on the back burner.

-Darke

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut