Okay so I'm working on Workers that can perform some actions. My problem lies in what KIND of actions can be performed.
Here's what I have so far:
1> Acquire. Meaning that you get "?" Workers at your disposal.
2> Convert. Change "?" Workers from one class to another. 3 Yellow become 1 Red.
3> Match. For example, 2 Yellow & 1 Orange are required to pass this card.
Anyone have any other ideas which could be used with Workers???
I'm really drawing a blank... Many thx to all who comment. Cheers.
Reduce cost Y by X for each worker you send to this card.
Increase production of X resource by Y for each worker sent to this location.
A variation is reduce production of X building/monument/etc. by Y round(s) for each worker sent to this location.
Increase damage against opponents by X for Y worker(s) assigned to this location.
The flip side of this is to reduce damage by X for Y worker(s) assigned to this location.
More areas become accessible the more workers are assigned to this location.
If you have X workers here, you may send other workers to only Tier 1 Locations.
If you have X+1 workers here, your workers may visit Tier 1 and Tier 2 Locations.
If you have X+3 (or whatever) workers here, your workers may visit all Locations.
This is boring. However, you can earn X Victory Points for every Y worker(s) assigned to this location.
You may also sacrifice/retire workers at a certain location for X+2 Victory Points.
Some games allow you to "scrap" a worker to reclaim resources instead of VP.
That is indeed an interesting question. You have to determine how the players interact with the game.
It`s not a worker placement, but a good example is puerto rico. You have a lot of things to manage, but by itself, you cannot build stuff, produce goods, ship goods, etc. You need special actions (roles) to interact with the game.
For worker placement, it`s the same thing. I think the first question you should has question is WHAT. What are the resources required? what are the actions that the player must do? What are the game elements the player needs to interact with.
The second question is HOW. Can multiple players put their worker there? Is there a cost to pay? In "Louis XIV", there was different kind of challenges "The place with the most cubes gets the reward", "Anybody there gets the reward", etc. In "leonardo da vinci", pawns are placed in order, the first player get it free, and other player gets its by paying.
Third, depending on how your game evolves, there could be multiple variations of the same type of action. For example, in "lords of water deep", you can build new buildings that has similar or more powerful effect than the starting buildings in play.
A worker staffing a location signifies ownership. That worker's player is the only player able to use that location and its benefits. If other players want to use that location, they either need to wrest control of it from the current owner, or pay a fee to the current owner.
I seem to recall this kind of thing being in older games like Power Grid and for some reason, of of the expansions to Ticket to Ride. My memory's a bit rusty on both, however. But larienna's mention of Lords of Waterdeep is what jogged my memory.
You can even see it in King of Tokyo, of course. It's just that the game features only a single worker per player... ;-)
Is there any construction for the workers?
If so, you can have some workers being assigned to another card. Which would reduce the workers needed for a particular card.
For example:
A worker is assigned to a calculating job (card). Which will reduce the construction of a house with 2 workers.
The opportunity for a worker to be assigned somewhere else, might reduce the overal cost.
The opportunity for a worker to be assigned somewhere else, might reduce the overall cost.
Yeah this is a bit like @let-off studios FIRST suggestion with regards to having a reduction in COST... Like I replied, I like this concept. Could be variable and apply for "X" amount of Workers.
I'm slowly absorbing these ideas... And trying to see HOW they can fit. But yeah some good suggestions so far.
For worker placement, it`s the same thing. I think the first question you should has question is WHAT. What are the resources required? what are the actions that the player must do? What are the game elements the player needs to interact with.
Well I have very NOVEL "Workers". This is for the "QuestAC" 2nd Edition ... And I had some general ideas about "stockpiling", "converting" and "trading" that all went "out-the-window" when I realized that instead the game would be PARTY-Oriented. Not as a get-together but as a GROUP/COLLECTIVE.
A PARTY is composed of several units and there are several parties in play which allow you to conquer cards and ultimately BEAT the Active Quest.
That's what I am working with... The ACTIONs are still a Work-In-Progress (WIP). I will continue to ponder these suggestions and the ideas presented to see what I can come up with...
Can a worker get a worker to work for it?
This too could reduce too, 2 doing the work of 3.
Completely resembling my job atm!!!
I am not a huge fan of worker placement, I ended up liking lords of waterdeep, else the only physical game I have is Leonardo Da vinci.
And the reason why is because the worker placement mechanism is a bit different in that game. One of the task consis in building inventions, and the more worker you put on those task, the faster the invention progress.
So you have to juggle between using worker to get special abilities, resources, etc. Or using worker to build stuff at home.
And the reason why is because the worker placement mechanism is a bit different in that game. One of the task consist in building inventions, and the more worker you put on those task, the faster the invention progress.
So you have to juggle between using worker to get special abilities, resources, etc. Or using worker to build stuff at home.
This reminds me of the Civilization (Civ) series. Converting between Production points and Culture & Food & Science. So more of your workers on Production spaces (Shields), the quicker you could build Building and Wonders. So while in Da Vinci it is inventions, in Civ it buildings and Wonders. Similar concept different implementation (and game).
There are two (2) cards with similar uses: they are Monsters and Bosses... The difference between both is that:
1. Monsters: Can have multiple cards in the timeline but... only rely on the "Count" of Heroes. What this means is if a Monster "requires" 3 Heroes, they can be ANY type of Heroes as long as the "Count" is 3. So these three (3) combinations are valid: 3 Yellow, 2 Yellow & 1 Orange or 1 Orange & 2 Red...
2. Bosses: Can only have at most ONE (1) in the timeline... But require an EXACT match of heroes before the battle can begin. So if it's 3 Yellow, 2 Orange and 1 Red... the "Count" is 6 ... But for a boss you NEED the EXACT combination of Heroes to battle a Boss.
Battles BEGIN when the requirement (for a Party) is reached. Once this happens on a TURN, the PARTY and the OPPONENT "battle" until either the OPPONENT or the PARTY is defeated.
If the PARTY is defeated, the OPPONENT wins and the player can "score" this card into his/her Treasury (each card is worth 1 Point).
Again these are some of my "early thoughts" on the matter. Of course I will review, note and consider other possibilities... But so far I am VERY interested. Cheers!
They will have only ONE (1) Classification: Monsters, period.
But they will have two (2) variations: regular Monsters and Bosses. Same rules as above ... And I've made the combat mechanic a bit "unbalanced" since it is less favorable outcome when "battling".
So let's say a Boss has THREE (3) units, you place three (3) Black Workers into the cup. Then you place (example) FOUR (4) units for the Active Player. This results in SEVEN (7) Workers in total. The Active Player draws Workers until all of HIS/HER Workers are removed (player loses) or until all three (3) Black Workers are removed (player victory).
The difference here is that although you have an ADVANTAGE with FOUR (4) Workers, losing one (1) results in a 50/50 chance to win (with 3 each). If there are more Black Workers (for some boss or monster) than Player Workers (which is maybe possible)... The odds are in the Monster's favor but still in a form of BALANCE that is achieved. So MORE Workers = better odds of LOSING but you have a "superior quantity" in the odds.
It's a good mechanic IMHO. Otherwise making the REMOVED Worker the victorious turn means that a POWERFUL Monster gets more and more powerful and really hard to beat. I don't want that. I want something more balanced. Better odds but greater chance of being defeated too...
I'm thinking of using Action Points which EQUAL the SIZE of your "Treasury": 1 AP per Treasury Card. You start with 3 APs and you don't earn any additional APs until your 4th card gets played into your Treasury. That's another possible mechanic for a card ... FLOATER (Double Arrow). It can be played into the Active Quest or into the Treasury using one (1) Action Point.
I have this mechanic in-mind for my COMBAT. It will work great with the current implementation of Quest AC v2. And I've changed HOW the mechanic works to be more BALANCED in my particular case...
Any additional ACTIONS for "Workers"??? Thoughts, feedback, comments, questions, etc. are all welcome! Cheers.
The "Treasury" contains cards from the Completed Quests. In general each card in the "Treasury" is worth +1 Action Points but the players have a minimum of 3 APs. The idea here is to allow the players to play "weaker" cards during the start of the game (like 1 or 2 APs each) and then as the game progresses higher AP counts (like 3, 4 or 5 APs).
It generally means that the Quests player embark upon are more "grandiose" and prove to be more of a challenge offering HIGHER "rewards" too.
In addition there will be the "FLOATER" cards which allow you to pay the AP cost to shift between the "Treasury" and the "Active Quest".
Which FINALLY determines what the 2nd Button determines: the number of Action Points required to PLAY that card.
This means that Action Points start at 1 or 2, mid-term 3 or 4 and ending 5 which are very special/rare cards. Obviously this is Quest AC v2... And as such there will be no CCG/TCG aspect to the game... But instead booster packs with fifteen (15) cards (one pack per Quest), four (4) Quests per Deck...
One booster pack per quest and players can mix-and-match as they see fit. You might want to customize your deck... in the event that you prefer using some cards over others (that are in limited supply to the standard deck such that you may want several copies).
I finally realized what the 2nd Button will represent and that's TOTALLY AWESOME! It will mean the number of Action Points required to PLAY that card... Great... Finally some of the Fog is parting and offering up some solid ideas.
Good stuff... Finally making some sense now!
It's starting to crystalize that APs can be used for a multitude of purposes like:
1. Drawing one (1) card from your Deck into your Hand = 1 AP.
2. Playing a card from your Hand into the Active Quest = ? APs.
3. Swapping one (1) card from your Treasury into the Active Quest = ? APs.
4. Performing one (1) card ACTION (the beef of this thread) = 1 AP.
Other thoughts... You Hand is limited to Five (5) cards. Some cards when used in your "Treasury" offer BONUSES to increase the Hand size (6 to 8). This is another thought that crossed my mind ... In making sure that there is plenty of "abilities" for the various cards.
About #3 ... ONLY "Floater" cards can do this (not all cards in your Treasury).
Another aspect that the "Treasury" can hold ONE (1) "Slot" for a bonus ability that is used directly from the "Treasury" (Active Bonus). And you may have two (2), one per completed quest. And since it takes three (3) quests to win, there is only two (2) of those cards possible.
Instead of using Action Points (APs), I will use the "Treasury" and Income! At the start of the game, each player has a DEFAULT three (3) Income. Which means they can play a 3 Point Fragment, a 2 + 1 Fragments, or three (3) 1 Fragments. This also means that higher Fragments are not immediately accessible such as 4 or 5 Point Fragments.
Which means when a Player COMPLETES his/her first quest, they should probably have 4+ Fragments in their "Treasury" making their Income 4+ per turn (note that income is NOT cumulative).
Note #1: There are other actions one can use their Income for such as "Drawing +1 card" into your Hand (That costs 1 Income per card). Or Floaters can be sent to the Active Quest or Treasury at a cost specified by each Fragment (obviously at the expense of Income if played into the "Active Quest"). And so forth...
Definitely some good suggestion which help "spark" some of my own IDEAS. I'm pretty sure that the design using the "Workers" is in an ADVANCED stage. It may not be ready for a "Prototype" just yet... But it may be time to design some NEW cards and see what THIS version is looking like!
Thanks for all your suggestions...
But if anyone has any additional comments, feedback, questions, feel free to add to this discussion... Thank you for the current suggestions, I'm still seeing what can (or cannot) work with my design. Cheers!
I have decided that while I make plans for another project and tomorrow I go out for groceries... I might get the chance to ponder further on this design and see where all these "extras" can lead me.
I'm a bit worried that the game may "seem" too "LINEAR" meaning that you need to work in a specific order. But I know this is untrue if same Actions can be played on different types of cards (Quest Fragments).
So a "Dwarven Mine" may allow from 1 to 3 Yellow Workers, an "Elderly Dwarf" may allow 1 to 2 Red Workers. And just like that we have a Lair card and a Character card which lead to different Workers... That's cool by me!
Of course I will work on the sample over the weekend.
I'm a bit busy before then and it is SO HOT outside and in my apartment. I need to take a breather with all this intense weather ... Like 40 degrees Celsius out; this at Noon today.
For the principle: to have random boosters with a pool of 300 cards to build your deck from... But the COST of "art" is a bit prohibitive. It would probably cost an additional $15k ... We'll see. I have a "bunch" of projects to concern myself... ATM this is something I am working in-between projects.
I want to prototype some cards and get "the feel" for the game.
This is yet another "iteration" with again, more fine-tuning and changes things to WORK BETTER with the "Programming" and "Engine Building" Mechanics used by this design.
I'm really getting a better FEEL for the game as things start to "crystallize". And what I mean is that different aspects which I may have thought about and expressed were still not 90%... Maybe 50% only. Now I feel that things are closer to 75% without the prototype of some cards. If I make some more samples and work-out more details... I MAY be at 90%.
Again this is in-terms of the CONCEPT not all the cards... Just banging out the prototype will make things more apparent and just make more sense.
We'll see... This design may not be the primary one for a long while. But at some point, it could become HOT again ... If I feel there is enough TRACTION to support it.
Cheers all!
 | Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (2) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (37) by Jacob |
| I need a 5th category of encounters (7) by larienna |
| Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (2) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
I like this one... It could be a "Treasure" that requires "Y" workers to reduce the cost of a party by 1 Worker (of a specific class). Like 3 Yellow means 1 Red required for 1 other card... Kind of like "speeding up" ...
I like this one too! It means that perhaps after a Quest is completed, you can convert to "unclassified" Workers. Something like "disband" "Y" workers to be 1 Unclassified Worker for the NEXT Quest. Like a starting bonus...
I like this one also... This could be in my case "the opposite": in a Boss Battle, the player with more workers is in CONTROL of the "Boss" and BLOCKS playing cards to the Right of the Timeline. Until the Boss is CONQUERED with the right combination of Workers (matching).
Like Workers can be ACCUMULATED ... But ultimately control is left to the Player Battling the Boss... Once the match of Workers is achieved, that ENDs the battle. There are no Winners or Losers... It purely about CONQUERING (via matching)...