Skip to Content

Searching mechanic

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

OK. It seems like through chat and discussion, we have a pretty clear idea of how we want to handle discoveries.. How about searching??

Briefly, let's all go through and post how they think searching would be implemented. I will post my ideas in a bit.

-Darke

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

Darkehorse wrote:
OK. It seems like through chat and discussion, we have a pretty clear idea of how we want to handle discoveries.. How about searching??

What was the consensus on discoveries?

As for searching, I think the location (or tile type) that you're on shoudl dictate your chances somehow.

I liked the idea of the bag of chits... and searching in a "safer" location might mean drawing more chits and choosing one. Or maybe better would be a "more dangerous" location means you draw more, keep any Obstacle chits you get, and choose from the rest... something like that.

Did we say we're using Action Points? It would also make sense that the more APs you spend, the "better" your search result is somehow.

As a reminder, the relative dangers/value of discoveries of the tile types are as follows:

1. Passageway
2 or 3. Cavern
2. or 3. Completed Passage
4. Completed Cavern

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: Searching mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:

What was the consensus on discoveries?

it hasn't been hammered out completely, but drawing a chit and placing the obstacle/discovery on the tile. Then we discussed a mechanic for either A) placing discovery markers when other explorers 'document' the discovery -or- B) removing discovery markers when other explorers 'document' the discovery.

It's not set in stone of course, but we can hammer out those details later..

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Searching mechanic

Had we decided that there would be "partial caverns" then? :)

Searching is not the same as discovering though, which is why we need carda as well as chits. One suggestion was that cards were drawn equivalent to the APs spent on an increasing scale, but that if the player drew an Event they had to take it (rather than any discoveries.)
Of course, that assumes we are going to have Events in the game.

Anonymous
Searching mechanic

How about "draw X, keep the ones that match your tile type" X could be fixed, action points, whatever. Or you could go the other way and have the tile list or imply ("all passages keep blah") the types of chits you would keep.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Brainstorm

OK I really don't have good idea of how I want this to work. However I do think we need to think heavily about a few things:

1) How do we prevent someone from sitting in a single cave and continuously searching until the entire deck has been depleted? One method I can think of is that the first time you search, it costs 1 AP, the second time 2 APs, the 3rd time, 4APs, etc. Another method might be a player can only search a room once.. Period...

2) I really think cards should be drawn for searching. With cards, any treasures (or portable discoveries? =D ) can be laid face down in front of the player... I think with this mechanism we can give an unknown factor to the game. For instance, say I am clearly ahead on points, and I find the exit. However, I look over and see that scurra has 10 cards face down in front of him. Those could be worth a lot of points, so I have to decide whether or not I need to go around and try to score more points or whether I should rely on the points I have already scored. Another interesting thing is that in the decks there could be 'nothing' cards (like 'empty' cavern or 'worthless potsherds') that could be kept face down in front of the player as bluffing cards.... Any thoughts?

3) Do we want to implement event cards like Scurra suggests? Things like swarmed by angry bats, or fell in a crevase, etc. Also, would these all be negative? I assume with most it would just be a matter of paying an AP penalty, but we could do other things like make a player lose a discovery, lose a piece of equipment, loose a treasure, etc. We could also do global events like earthquakes, floods, volcanos, etc. I personally would love this, but I think it would shift the game even more towards a beer & pretzels style game.. Again, I have no problem with this but If we're going to have a B&P game, shouldn't we make it more B&P rather than sitting on the fence between that and a Strategy game? I guess what I'm saying is we should pick a mood for the game and stick to it. Also would we want to implement a 'staged' deck for searching as I suggested in a previous post? I think it would be great because we could put the easier events and less valuable treasures near the front stages, and then have things get progressively harder / more valuable. Any thoughts on this?

4) As for searching itself, I'm not so sure about draw X and keep 1 or whatever.. Shouldn't players 'get what they get'? I mean otherwise, won't you have all of the good cards taken and then just have a deck weighted heavily with crappy cards at the bottom?

All for now.
-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Searching mechanic

It's a good point about someone sitting in a cave and just searching, but my feeling is that the rewards for searching shouldn't be as great as making discoveries.

I think the "staged" event deck would be the best way to handle things too - the finds may escalate in value but so would the risks.

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Searching mechanic

Quote:
1) How do we prevent someone from sitting in a single cave and continuously searching until the entire deck has been depleted? One method I can think of is that the first time you search, it costs 1 AP, the second time 2 APs, the 3rd time, 4APs, etc. Another method might be a player can only search a room once.. Period...

The escalating cost of searching the same tile sounds good to me. this should apply to every one. So lets say each time a tile is searched you add a marker to it to indicate how depleted it is. The cost of searching is increased by the number of markers.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

Scurra wrote:
It's a good point about someone sitting in a cave and just searching, but my feeling is that the rewards for searching shouldn't be as great as making discoveries.

Um... what's the difference? I thought that in every different way we discussed, making discoveries was a result of searching...

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Reply

Quote:

The escalating cost of searching the same tile sounds good to me. this should apply to every one. So lets say each time a tile is searched you add a marker to it to indicate how depleted it is. The cost of searching is increased by the number of markers.

I think this is a valid idea too, but a concern has been voiced that there is going to be WAY too many chits laying around everywhere. Can anyone think of a good way to clean up the chits? Or some sort of mechanic to make them take up less space?

Quote:

It's a good point about someone sitting in a cave and just searching, but my feeling is that the rewards for searching shouldn't be as great as making discoveries.

I think the "staged" event deck would be the best way to handle things too - the finds may escalate in value but so would the risks.

Yes I agree the discoveries should be worth more because they are fewer in number. Regarding the staged deck, would it encourage people to only search during the beginning of the game when the rewards are more easily found? Conversely would a person be more likely to sit back and let the other players search through the first stages, and the wait until the later stages to search for the more 'meaty' things.

Perhaps we could combine the progressive difficulty mechanic with the staged deck mechanic. I.E. The first time you searched, you would pay 1 AP and would take a card from the stage 1 deck, the next time you would pay 2 AP and draw from the stage 2 deck, etc. Also we could decide that you couldn't perform a stage 2 search, before a stage 1 search had been done. I.E. Before you perform a thorough search, you must perform a preliminary search, then a standard search. Any thoughts?

Another option would be to have a time mechanism. I.E. We could have a turn counter... All searches performed during the first X turns would draw from the stage 1 deck, all performed during the next X turns would draw from the stage 2 deck. This mechanic might promote a sense of urgency as the game wore on. Also if we used the exit card mechanic as I described before, the timing mechanism would prevent the game from ending too soon.

All for now.
-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Searching mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:

Um... what's the difference? I thought that in every different way we discussed, making discoveries was a result of searching...

Discoveries come from arriving in a cave first (and drawing from a chits bag) - things like underground rivers, fantastic staclagmites etc. Searching is finding artifacts (and/or mad bats!) by subsequently exploring the cave. These would be the cards.

At least that's how I thought we were seeing it.

Oh, and Seth is probably going to chime in now and say that he proposed multiple decks but we all shouted at him ;)
I don't think multiple decks is a good idea at all. But a single deck, in which it isn't obvious when the "stage one" cards have gone, seems workable to me.
The reason people wouldn't just wait for the later cards is that the risks would escalate too. If the worst that happened in "stage one" was a rock falling on you and destroying a piece of equipment, but the worst that could happen in "stage four" was that your camera failed so you'd have to return all the "discovery chits" you had collected, then the fact that the rewards for "stage four" are greater than that for "stage one" would be evened out.

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

can't you just put 4 or five categories of search-iness on a card, and keep a record of what category each player is currently at?

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
...

Quote:

Oh, and Seth is probably going to chime in now and say that he proposed multiple decks but we all shouted at him
I don't think multiple decks is a good idea at all. But a single deck, in which it isn't obvious when the "stage one" cards have gone, seems workable to me.
The reason people wouldn't just wait for the later cards is that the risks would escalate too. If the worst that happened in "stage one" was a rock falling on you and destroying a piece of equipment, but the worst that could happen in "stage four" was that your camera failed so you'd have to return all the "discovery chits" you had collected, then the fact that the rewards for "stage four" are greater than that for "stage one" would be evened out.

Well I don't think paying X APs to draw from a certain deck (to simulate how thoroughly you searched) is necessarily the best idea, which is what Seth was going for in the beginning. However drawing from different deck based upon how much searching you have done in the past or how far along the game has progressed is entirely different, don't you think? That way you can't just decide to immediately jump to the most lucratively staged deck just because you spent the required action points. I understand the obstacles could be worse in the higher staged decks, but still you'd want to curb someone from going immediately after those decks. But again I'm trying to stimulate conversation, so there is no wrong or right way.

Ok, how about this: Use the staged deck but don't put the 'stage #' on the backs of the card, rather put them on the card fronts. So during the game setup, you'd seperate all the different stages and shuffle each 'mini deck' seperately, and then lay the stage 1 deck first, put the stage 2 deck underneath that one, then the stage 3 deck, etc. Would that work?

Quote:

can't you just put 4 or five categories of search-iness on a card, and keep a record of what category each player is currently at?

I can't quite picture this. You mean you would draw a card, and depending upon how thoroughly you searched would mean what thing you found on the card? I.E. There might be three things on the card; one for preliminary, one for normal and one for extensive searches? I'm not sure I really like this because how do you remember which one you actually found?

-Darke

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

You would need some sort of device that keeps tracks of what level of search you are currently at in front of you (pile of chits, some marker on a 'timeline' etc). And then when you draw a search card, you simply look down the list based on what your current level is.

This will keep the card down low.

The Clue VCR game worked like this (they put six different mysteries on a card), and everyone just agreed to use, say, mystery 3.

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

Actually, trivia games work on the same principal; each card has five or six catergories, but you only choose one. You can easily do the same thing here based on type of search, what area of the cave you are searching (pool, pathway, deep pit, etc.)

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

Scurra wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

Um... what's the difference? I thought that in every different way we discussed, making discoveries was a result of searching...

Discoveries come from arriving in a cave first (and drawing from a chits bag) - things like underground rivers, fantastic staclagmites etc. Searching is finding artifacts (and/or mad bats!) by subsequently exploring the cave. These would be the cards.

At least that's how I thought we were seeing it.

What we talked about was that when you searched a room you might find a discovery. If you're the first person to find that discovery, then you score extra for it, and if you 'visit' that discovery by the end of the game you score some too. But it was just one of the possible results of searches.... one of the "lucrative" search results. That will lead into my next post...

- Seth

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

Darkehorse wrote:

Well I don't think paying X APs to draw from a certain deck (to simulate how thoroughly you searched) is necessarily the best idea, which is what Seth was going for in the beginning.

That's not what I was going for in the beginning. If I ever said anything like that it might have been in passing as a suggestion of how to differentiate seraches when we started talking about Action Points. I don't particularly like that idea at all.

What I said at the beginning was that you draw from a different deck or bag of chits or whatever based on what type of tile you're in. Some tiles are more likely to have better things to find than others (caverns vs passageways). The ones with better things also have worse obstacles and bad stuff.

So a passageway would be pretty safe to search, but you're not likely to find anything to speak of. Maybe a low-scoring thing like a cave painting or something. But in a full cavern you could find an rock bridge, worth more points (a discovery that sticks around), or maybe a nifty treasure (something you take with you)- but you might also drop your findings over a cliff, or have to climb a cliff face.

That's what I had in mind from the start. I don't remember the conversation where "Finding Discoveries" and "Searching" became 2 different things. As for Action Points, I don't know how many it should cost to search, or if that number shoud depend on the type of search (type of tile your searching).

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: ...

sedjtroll wrote:
Darkehorse wrote:

Well I don't think paying X APs to draw from a certain deck (to simulate how thoroughly you searched) is necessarily the best idea, which is what Seth was going for in the beginning.

That's not what I was going for in the beginning. If I ever said anything like that it might have been in passing as a suggestion of how to differentiate seraches when we started talking about Action Points. I don't particularly like that idea at all.
- Seth

Yes you're right, I misquoted you (about the different decks). I apologize... As for the completion status, I think that's going the way of the dinosaurs. =(

Quote:

That's what I had in mind from the start. I don't remember the conversation where "Finding Discoveries" and "Searching" became 2 different things. As for Action Points, I don't know how many it should cost to search, or if that number shoud depend on the type of search (type of tile your searching).

I looked back through a few posts... I had assumed this was a given but now maybe it's something that Scurra and I had discussed in a chat one night and then my brain told me that it was a 'done deal' when actually it wasn't. The reason I like this method is because I think discoveries (or cave features or non portable treasures, whatever) and obstacles would be impossible to miss. I.E. You need not search for them, they are just there. Imagine entering a cavern and having to look for the underground pool that takes up 3/4 of the floor. That's ludicrous. Also for obstacles, how can you search for something that prevents you from crossing the cavern? Imagine crossing a cavern, hitting a dead tunnel, then going back to the cavern. You decide to search it and find a Cave In. Darn! That wasn't there before. Dang it! Now I'm trapped. See my point? I think once you enter a cavern you should draw chits for features and obstacles and place them immediately.

-Darke

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

Darkehorse wrote:

I think once you enter a cavern you should draw chits for features and obstacles and place them immediately.

I like this idea... I just didn't know it existed :)

So the searching would be for physical things that would score points, like the old Relic Rush idea, and complete caverns would yield bostacles and discoveries..? I see how the discoveries could offer points based, as someone suggested, on how many (or few) other people also "see" it. Should there be points for overcoming obstacles as well (this would suggest thet there's EITHER an obstacle OR a discovery in a cavern)? Or should the prize for overcoming the obstacle be the points for the discovery (this would suggest both an obstacle and a discovery in a cavern)?

- Seth

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

Darkehorse wrote:

I think once you enter a cavern you should draw chits for features and obstacles and place them immediately.

Maybe the obstacle should be placed immediately, but the discovery not until you overcome the obstacle. It would be even better if it could somehow be a secret what the discovery is until you get there, even if someone else already got there. I don't know how to impliment that without making cheating too easy (inadvertant or on purpose).

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
My Thoughts

Hpox had a good idea in chat last night that I wasn't fully able to process until after chat ended... Cave sections could have icons on them. One icon could be for a discovery, and one for a obstacle. So if you go to a cave, and it has a discovery icon, you draw a discovery chit and place it over the icon. Same for obstacles. Cave tiles could have one, both, or neither icon on the tile... I think we could strategically design the tiles also. Like have all dead end cave tiles have a discovery icon. Also, it might be good for a cave tile with a lot of exits to have an obstacle (the thinking being that it will be a heavily trafficed tile, therefore placing an obstacle there will slow players down). If we decide to go this route, we could probably set up a formula to denote how many tiles have discoveries or obstacles based upon the # of exits. I think this method would allow us to have more strategic placement, which I know is a major concern right now.

As for scoring for overcoming obstacles, my thought is they should just be used to hinder the players. I don't think obstacles should be scored for their own sake..

Responses?

-Darke

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Searching mechanic

I'm pretty sure someone had mentionned the icon on tiles earlier but I like it too. Certainly, having the icons on only some kind/type of tiles would be the way to go. The dead end tile with discovery is a great example because although the discovery will give you points, you'll have to go retrace your steps (losing time).

I support 100% the idea of having obstacles on tiles with the most exits. It make sense. Will it be just a conditional thing where if you have the right equipement you ignore the obstacle and if you don't it will cost a steep AP?

Now, this isn't searching though.. Is it? When you move on a tile with an icon (obstacle/discovery) you immediately draw the chit and place it right? (This is not clear)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
...

Quote:

I support 100% the idea of having obstacles on tiles with the most exits. It make sense. Will it be just a conditional thing where if you have the right equipement you ignore the obstacle and if you don't it will cost a steep AP?

Regarding having the right equipment, I guess it's how we implement equipment/obstacles. As an example, we could make a cave in obstacle cost 5 APs of digging to overcome, then we could design the shovel to give you a 5 AP bonus to digging. In that respect it would be automatic, I.E. if you had the shovel, you got through it. We could, however, have multiple difficulties for the different types of obstacle actions (examples could be digging, swimming, climbing, etc). So we could have an easy cave-in that cost 3 AP to overcome, a normal one which cost 5, and a difficult one which cost 8. If we decided to go that route, then obviously if you didn't have the shovel when you encountered an 'easy' cave in, it wouldn't set you back that much, but if you encountered the difficult cave in without the shovel, you might want to go around it if possible.

Quote:

Now, this isn't searching though.. Is it? When you move on a tile with an icon (obstacle/discovery) you immediately draw the chit and place it right? (This is not clear)

No, this would just be for placement of the obstacles/discoveries with the chits..
-Darke

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Searching mechanic

What I think was a really great idea I had yesterday in chat... It has to do with searching and that "carcassonne" completion thing (combined).

Let's say there are 3 players in an incomplete cavern. You complete the cavern by adding the last tile. Theme/game-wise this means every little part of that cavern has been "mapped" or seen or searched! Everyone who is currently inside that completed cavern draw one card. They can get "nothing" card, artifact/items or equipement(?).

It's simple and straightfoward. I think it adds to player interaction. It encourage cooperative effort to finish a part instead of that dreadful "second-last tile" that will give the advantage to the next player.

Opinions?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

hpox wrote:
Everyone who is currently inside that completed cavern draw one card. They can get "nothing" card, artifact/items or equipement(?).

Is that seperate from Discoveries? Because unless all the findings are "nothing" or "portable" then you have the "why did he see the river and I didn't" thing.

Also, if ANY of those players drew a "discovery" or an "event", it could apply to all those players.

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Searching mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:
hpox wrote:
Everyone who is currently inside that completed cavern draw one card. They can get "nothing" card, artifact/items or equipement(?).

Is that seperate from Discoveries?

Yes, the discoveries are icons on tiles. Everyone see thoses and the obstacles.

sedjtroll wrote:
Also, if ANY of those players drew a an "event", it could apply to all those players.

Yes awesome! Sounds like fun fun fun! Boulders, bats, stinking clouds, etc..

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Searching mechanic

I see it has being. We all searched that place..

Joe found ancient boots
Mike found a book
Luke found nothing
and Mary found a big scary bear! Everyone RUN!!

The downtime seems lesser because stuff that affect you can happen out of your turn

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

This seems good, but what's to say there will be multiple people in the same cavern?

In other news, do we really want tiles w/ obstacles on them (even if which obstacle is unknown? People could just not go to that tile.

Then again, I see what you're trying to do- (a) make the tiles such that "not going to that tile" wouldn't be easy, and (b) make some tiles better than others, so you want to place good tiles near you and bad ones sear opponents. This works towards what I was trying to accomplish with the scoring - guiding tile placement decisions - so I'm down with that. I was trying to do it in a way that was irrespective of the tiles though, because I thought it would be nice to have nice, clean tiles that just have geography on them... no other info. The rest of the info could come from the game rules and other bits.

But it appears I was in the minority in that regard, so perhaps this idea will pan out. Does it go hand in hand with the "Discovery Scoring" that we talked about before- where the player making the discovery scores the most for it (the fewer people coming to look at it, the more the finder gets)? I think it could.

Also, is the Finding or Obstacle put on these special tiles when the tile is placed or entered?

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Searching mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:
This seems good, but what's to say there will be multiple people in the same cavern?

With those rules, I bet that when a cavern is about to be finished a lot of people will want to be there.

Quote:
because I thought it would be nice to have nice, clean tiles that just have geography on them... no other info. The rest of the info could come from the game rules and other bits.

I don't see what's wrong with only 2 special icons : (Discovery / Obstacle) it could even be incorporated into the graphic somehow to make it seamless and (beautiful)

Quote:
Does it go hand in hand with the "Discovery Scoring" that we talked about before- where the player making the discovery scores the most for it (the fewer people coming to look at it, the more the finder gets)? I think it could.

I too think it could work

Quote:

Also, is the Finding or Obstacle put on these special tiles when the tile is placed or entered?

Either way could work.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Searching mechanic

hpox wrote:
What I think was a really great idea I had yesterday in chat... It has to do with searching and that "carcassonne" completion thing (combined).

Let's say there are 3 players in an incomplete cavern. You complete the cavern by adding the last tile. Theme/game-wise this means every little part of that cavern has been "mapped" or seen or searched! Everyone who is currently inside that completed cavern draw one card. They can get "nothing" card, artifact/items or equipement(?).

It's simple and straightfoward. I think it adds to player interaction. It encourage cooperative effort to finish a part instead of that dreadful "second-last tile" that will give the advantage to the next player.

Opinions?

I reiterate my reply from chat...

:(

I think searching should be something that is done manually using APs on one tile. I'm not sure that the all the explorers in a cavern mechanic would work because as it was said, how often will this occur?

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

hpox wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with only 2 special icons : (Discovery / Obstacle)

Nothing's wrong with it per se... it's just info on tiles vs no info on tiles. In my opinion the latter is more desireable, but it's probably not that big a deal.

Quote:
sedjtroll wrote:

Also, is the Finding or Obstacle put on these special tiles when the tile is placed or entered?

Either way could work.

I think it would be better if at least 1 person had to arrive at the location before the particular discovery or obstacle is known.

- Seth

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut