Would really like to hear the opinion on how this particular situation should be handled?! I know people hate losing, but at the same time a "tie" can also be a non-interesting outcome in there is no winner. I am thinking that I am leaning towards an option which "declares" a winner under certain terms.
But which(?) that is what I am wondering!
Will you please post a simple list of all the ways players can earn points in the game?
Each card has VALUES from 1 to 9. In addition, each card has a PRESET OPERATOR ("+", "-", "/", "x", "^"). Players can have at most 6 cards to make an equation and score points.
So a card of "+6" means that the equation can ADD "+6" points.
This is the Formulation Round where you use the cards and their VALUES to make an equation with the remaining cards in play.
The Total Point Goal is determined by rolling White 3D6s (3 to 18).
It's not very complicated TBH. Just some MATH that can be tough unless you stick to the "x1" or "/1" which are usually available.
Is that clear enough??? Or do I need to add more detail?!
Note #1: Here are some more details about scoring:
An example 5 card equation is: (((+4 -1) /1) x2) ^1 = 6 points.
This all depends on what cards are in play, which operators they use and how you use your Mana (Power, Skill and Magic) to boost the possible list of values for the various cards in-play.
There are three (3) rounds divided into 3 Phases: Population, Seeding and Knock-Out. The third (3rd) round has no Knock-Out phase.
And then at the very end there is the Formulation round where players try to make the best possible Equation to score points (and be equal to the 3D6s total point goal or as close as possible)...
So one could argue that the 3rd Phase of round #3 is the "Formulation" phase.
This means that the game can be only three (3) round with 3 Phases each!
Note #2: Again you might wonder WHY wouldn't you only use ADDITION ("+") operators/cards. Well the details are in the Build Points. In order to make a viable deck you have 30 Build Points and 15 cards. If you compute (easily) that means on average 2 Build Points per card. Balancing means that by adding some "+" (Pluses) with some "-" (Minuses) or "/" (Divisions) means you can formulate a solid yet flexible Micro Deck of fifteen (15) cards.
Also note each card has a Monster Tactic which can be "Instant" or "Passive". Passives mean that the ability is triggered as soon as the card is REVEALED. The Instants allow you to interrupt play and use them whenever a player decides is the best moment to use the Tactic.
Believe there is a lot going on in this LITTLE "card game". Like I said in an earlier comment, the card design is very COOL (even though it is a bit simplified in the current prototype). I had to make corrections to the design based on PLAYABILITY and to lower AP (and confusion?!?!)
Note #3: It is important to say that harder to use operators like Division and Subtraction have BETTER "Monster Tactics" than Addition and Multiplication. Why? Well the answer is because I want player to blend their decks with a multitude of operators not ONLY Addition and Subtraction.
Currently the First Edition of the game features 15 Unique and Distinct cards/Monsters. But sometimes you want three (3) of a card just to ensure that the right card is available to be played. And so that too affects your Build Point Total too.
And there are all kinds of strategy involved of in all phases of a turn: Population, Seeding and Knock-Outs (Formulation in Round #3).
Sometimes you can HELP an opponent by Knocking-Out a card and in other cases you can damaged the end result that a Player was working towards (the Total Point Score). So having less than six (6) cards is not the end of the world. From my estimates card counts can go from 4 to 6 cards, depending on how the game's rounds are played.
However there are some things that I didn't discuss in detail like the 4D6s dice rolling for Mana Pools. There are three (3) Pools: Power, Skill and Magic.
The 4th die is Black while the other 3D6s are white.
The dice are rolled and allotted to whichever Pool a player wants. The Black die is called the "Arcane" die and basically it serves as an alternative die. Meaning if you roll 4 Power, 3 Skill, 2 Magic and 4 Arcane... Well you could substitute the 2 Magic for the 4 Arcane, meaning that the player chooses 4 Magic.
Each card/Monster has a STAT track which corresponds to a combination of the three Pools: Power, Skill and Magic. Some cards only have Power others only Skill and Magic, some only Magic, etc. Values go from 1 to (?) depending on the nature of the card/Monster.
For example: Witch Doctor (Exponent "^") has 3 Magic (with a Default of "1").
This means that when you PLAY this card, it has a Default of "^1" and allows for 2 more Magic points for "^2" and "^3"... Again why(?) would you do this is to allow more OPTIONS when formulating your equation.
Like 3^3 = 27 (3 x 3 x 3). But you could have a Division "/3" which brings the total back down to "9 Points".
Again the MATH is pretty cool. The operators are FUN and the phases of each round make sense too! It's really getting interesting TBH.
If you have any additional questions, please let me know. I know I've taken a bit of space to explain FURTHER... But I'd rather that you understood the design to make for a better "answer" to my TIE managing question...
Although I still had a difficult time following your instructions here, I have a couple ideas for tiebreakers (I guess?):
You don't think a TIE should end the game, right?! I've been leaning that way too... Because honestly that leaves both players "unhappy" and I think it could yield poor results if the answer was to "re-play".
Okay... Question? "Why go the Price is Right way?" Closest to the target score without going over. Is there some kind of "reasoning" by which this makes more sense than remaining a TIE (score-wise)??
I like the second idea... Goes to making the game more varied: the player with the most different operators wins. So "+" & "-" would lose to "+", "x" and "^". This is really SMART. I like it... It injects more of the "spirit" of the game which is making your equations more challenging.
THAT (^^) is way cool!
The last suggestion needs some clarification. A winner is chosen by checking the OPERAND value and the higher of the two (2) LAST numbers wins. So a "+4" beats a "x2"... Right?! This is what you meant.
I'm not sure if this is good or not. Like WHY(?) would a "+4" beat a "x2"???
I mean solely on the OPERAND value this could favor simplified equations. Like only PLUSES "+" and MINUSES "-" and just put a high-value at the end.
Similarly if we have: "+2" and "-2" BOTH are "2s" so we would move on to the next OPERAND, right???
I get you are trying to find a "sure-fire" way to ensure that a winner is determined and not rely on a TIE... This method seems to TRY to mitigate this and I think it will at some point lead to a GUARANTEED winner.
Not sure about how I feel about it... Hmm. What about something like:
Do this AFTER the operator count and then add up all operands. So it would be:
1. Count each unique OPERATOR, the player with the most different OPERATOR wins.
2. If there is a tie, ADD up all the OPERANDS and see who has the highest overall score.
(I have a 3rd bullet... But I'll wait to see what are your thoughts!)
Anyone have any opinion to share or comment to shed some light on this issue???
Just wondering because @"Let-Off Studios" started on the topic... But I wasn't certain he had a chance to review and finish his thoughts based on some of the additional input that I had put in...
Anyhow... I anyone else has ideas or would care to comment, please feel free to do so. Questions, Comments, Feedback, Ideas are all welcome! Cheers.
I like your second option better, of course.
1. The Player CLOSEST to the Target Score wins. If there is a tie, either above or Below, then proceed to the next check.
2. Count the amount of UNIQUE operators, the player with the highest amount is declared the winner. If however both players have use the SAME amount of operators, then proceed to the next check.
3. Add up all the OPERANDS to make one total. The player with the HIGHEST amount is declared the winner. If this check does not figure out a winner, proceed to the next check.
4. From the OPERAND pyramid, start at the highest level (3rd Level). The player with the HIGHEST TOTAL wins. If this does not determine a winner, go down a level and ADD 2 OPERANDS together again and see the TOTAL for this LEVEL. If there is a tie on the 2nd Level, proceed to the 1st Level and again ADD all 3 OPERAND again determine which player has the highest score.
I was waiting because it's SIMILAR to your "OPERAND-check" and go RIGHT. But in this case it goes DOWN the "pyramid" of values. Again inspired by your ideas, I just perfected the system a bit...
Please feel free to SHARE with me your thoughts! Cheers.
So having figured out some tid-bits of value, I am keep on "restoring" the REACH mechanic. But this time, instead of using a RANDOM REACH (per Monster), I am a bit relying on their STATS to determine the following categories:
1. Power: Reach being mostly Melee and such.
2. Skill: Reach being mostly relying on a form of subterfuge.
3. Magic: Reach being about magical enchanted Monsters.
This means that LIKE-WISE "circles" of influence can combat each other. That makes a lot of sense on PAPER (think Spreadsheet)... But I'll have to play around with the prototype and see what comes of it.
The second change is the HEALTH + OPERANDS. Previously (in Version 15) you would choose to ENABLE OPERAND Values (like 1, 2 or 6, etc.) and these would be the value you could use during the Formulation Phase of Round #3.
Instead, I going to go with the OPPONENT "Knocking-Out" values given the various STATS. So a "1" or "2" Power can be "Knocked-Out" and cannot be used (for example). Where does this make sense? For Multiplications and Divisions. Trying to keep scores from being adversely affected by using either "1" or "2". So this would mean that a Multiplication could start at "3"... Meaning "x3".
This means that you might require a Division by "/3" to restore order in your equation. But the opponent might have "Knocked-Out" your "3" operand... Which may be a "Magic" OPERAND.
It's very TRICKY to Balance properly all the cards for this First Edition of the game.
If a Monster has two (2) Primary Attacks dealing 1 Power Damage each... How do you handle this???
Is this ONE (1) TURN or TWO (2) TURNS???
What if you choose to attack two (2) CARDS instead of one??? Is this two (2) turns or one... How should this be best handled?
What do you think? Please weight in your opinion and let me know what you think is best...
Many thanks!
Anyone have any opinion to share or comment to shed some light on this particular issue??? Should it be one (1) turn if it is one (1) Monster... And multiple turns if it is several Monsters (2 to 3)...?
Also feel free to share your reasoning with me... So that it may help in solidifying the solution for the overall issue.
"@let-off studios" I know you gave some feedback earlier... Maybe you can share your own personal thoughts about how "Attacks" should be handled???
Many thanks to anyone who replies with their take...
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"More playtests and a "Question" for you(?)\""){kind=small}
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (14) by Jacob |
 | 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 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (11) by larienna |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| 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 |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
| Toy play: Creating a log while playing (15) by questccg |
I think the MAJOR problem is the composition of the Decks. Right now I have them on SUPER HARD... Making it difficult to marry the operators into an equation that works.
The last playtest I did resulted in the following:
Player #1: 6 Points (using 5 cards)
Player #2: 8 Points (using 6 cards)
The Total amount of Points was 7 Points...
So here is my question to you all...(?) What should I do??? Is this a TIE or should the player using the (most or least) cards win?? Or should it be the player who is closest without going above the score (Think Price is Right!)
Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on this FINAL scoring.
Best.
Note #1: I am doing the current round of playtesting with a couple VERY HARD decks (21/30 Build Points each).
As I have mentioned, it is my belief that by doing so... It will FORCE the game to be that much more difficult to play and yet still be "enjoyable".
Using some of the easier decks may prove even more "FUN" since you need to "rack your brains" less and Formulation is easier to do! And so my belief is that once the VERY HARD decks are "pleasing", the easier decks will be much more "FUN" to play with...