More at the beginning or more at the end!?

Tue, 08/18/2020 - 16:47

#1

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

From a mechanics standpoint of view...

It makes perfectly clear that if you earn +5 Income per turn and the start of the game, you probably need to accumulate wealth EARLY on and then use your reserves and limited income to win the game.

In the second case, it makes growing your Income difficult at the start of the game and as you progress steadily, you have more and more Income LATER on in the game...

In the 2nd case, what do you do with SAID income?! In the 1st case, isn't it simply a case of banking as much as possible and "giving" it a go to see if you have planned for enough income before running low on funds!?

Just some other perspective, from a PLAYING the game perspective.

Note #1: One argument for more income later ... Is that the cost of playing STRONGER cards costs more. This is just theory ATM. So like a 6 point cards, cost 6 income (or Gold) and it gives you some kind of "transformative" benefit. Which would mean that the game goes in the opposite way: first you pay, then you can benefit from the card in-play. In a way this is interesting too...

Tue, 08/18/2020 - 19:01

#2

I Will Never Gr...

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2015

Without having played ..

I like both methods of income generation.

I'm intrigued by games with a declining income more, personally. It makes people hoard at the start in fear that they will run out of income later in the game and not be able to do what they want.

At the same time though, it means they're using/purchasing the most powerful items/cards/whatevers up front, diminishing their wow factor later in the game.

Based on what I have read of this game so far, I feel that starting with less and gaining as you play into the active quest may be the more thematic/better way to go (you're being rewarded for your efforts).

Tue, 08/18/2020 - 21:01

#3

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Hmm... Let me propose this as an IDEA

What if like Magic: the Gathering (Magic) ... My own game had something LIKE a "Land" card. Not really the same in reality... Just the concept of one (1) type of card per Deck that belonged to a separate "deck" which was linked to the Treasury.

For example: If you build you deck of 60 cards and you have 8 Stockpile cards. The Stockpile cards could be in the Treasury Deck and at the start of any game, both players draw FIVE (5) of these cards FACE-UP (as to know the nature or identity of each card much like in a Draft).

But these "Stockpile" cards are a bit like Magic "Land" cards in that instead of producing Mana, the produce "Color" resources. And say your GOAL in the game is to accumulate a specific point total. Each of these "Stockpile" cards allow you to generate resources and it by putting a card in-play, you effectively lose one (1) income (per card played).

Thoughts??? I am still EXPLORING the game's engine and functioning. Right now the game is still a bit "un-wound" with some general concepts and ideas... But nothing 90% firm with the design...

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 11:51

#4

let-off studios

Offline

Joined: 02/07/2011

Stockpile of Thoughts

questccg wrote:

What if like Magic: the Gathering (Magic) ... My own game had something LIKE a "Land" card. Not really the same in reality... Just the concept of one (1) type of card per Deck that belonged to a separate "deck" which was linked to the Treasury.

I could imagine something like this being a purchasable card, similar to what's found in a deck-building game. You spend X currency to add a Stockpile card to your discard pile. After reshuffling, if the Stockpile is in your hand you can play it to collect Y resources of a certain type.

Not sure if what you're going for is more similar to a deckbuilder, but
the same concept can apply in other scenarios. You exchange currency now to "place an order" for resources arriving soon afterward.

Things to look out for:

Does this add too many cards to the game?
Are these multiple-use or single-use cards that are "trashed" after they are played once? How does this impact the distribution of resources overall?
Does the process of collecting resources take too long? For example: would adding it to the player's hand at the end of their turn be a more effective/satisfying mechanic? Should a player be able to collect resources as soon as they purchase a Stockpile card? Note that if you choose this method, there's really no reason to include Stockpile cards in the game unless you want to limit the number of times players can use the action.
Does this add too much down-time to the other player's turn? For example: can you restrict the resource collection to one or two different types of resources for each Stockpile card played, so that it doesn't take too long for a player to decide which resources to take?
Can you represent the collection of resources with other components instead of cards? Are cards really necessary for this process? For example: what if a player could discard X cards to perform the "Stockpile" action, allowing them to collect Y resources?

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 13:51

#5

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Not Deck-Building

I've already designed TradeWorlds, that is my Deck-Building game. This game in particular is "Quest Adventure Cards (tm), 2nd Edition" (Quest_v2). So let me repeat the idea... Because it's really NOT about Deck-Building.

In your area of play, at the TOP you have the cards for the Active Quest. Both player have cards in this Quest (it is a shared area).

Next closer to the player, you have the Treasury. This Treasury is meant to have only a limited amount of cards. For example, it might start with FIVE (5) pre-selected "Stockpile" cards. They are played "face-up" so the player can strategize and figure out his order of play. When the player DECIDES he wants to play ONE (1) "Stockpile" card, he chooses that card and puts it into the Active Quest, lowering his INCOME by -1 Gold per turn.

The opposite option (starting with NO income) is that corresponds to the amount of income scored by "completing" a quest. Each set of Lore Fragments comprise the cards that are to be played into the Treasury. Each set earns the player +1 Income (or +1 Gold). The goal would be to complete a predetermined amount of quests to win the game.

In any event, ideas are welcome. I'm just thinking about the design because I had some free time and I'd like to "firm-up" the design a bit to see HOW am I going to let players play this game...

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 14:18

#6

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Some additional thoughts

Okay let's for the sake of argument assume that I want to choose the zero (0) starting income and work towards growing that amount as a player plays the game (So option #1).

I'm trying to figure out WHAT "income" could be useful for. At the start of the game you have zero (0) income... That means "income" needs to be something that facilitates play and is not part of the "core" mechanics. It's a sort of BONUS, something that smooths the game and as you advance in the game, makes the game more fluid.

So let's say you completed ONE (1) Quest out of three. This earns you +1 Income (or +1 Gold if you prefer). That income could be used to PLAY the "Stockpile" card that is part of the completed quest. This means you could, for example, earn three (3) Yellow Cubes... At the expense of 1 Gold Income. OR you could use it to hold more than three (3) cards in hand... Let's say for the sake of argument you can have +4 extra cards in your hand (for a total of 7 cards in-hand).

And this Income could be ALTERNATED between HAND and Cubes. At one point the extra income can be used to hold more cards in-hand and then later in the game, that SAME extra income can be used to gain more resources.

I'm starting to see HOW this could all "work together"... And this resource could be "stolen" by an opponent "temporarily" ... That's another reason that I WANT "income" to be part of the game. HOW (It seems like I am forming some IDEAS) ... That is what I am trying to figure out.

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 14:31

#7

Juzek

Offline

Joined: 06/19/2017

Let me see if I understand

Let me see if I understand this play area as I look at the table:

[Other player's hand]
-[Other player's treasury]-
--[Active Quest area] --
---[My Treasury ] ---
----[My Hand] ----

So when you spend from your treasury, you swap cards with the active quest area?
both players have the opportunity to take the cards in the active quest area back into their treasury.

Is this competitive? or are both players cooperating in getting the quest objectives?

I like the idea of an area that you can swap cards with knowing that your opponent may be able to benefit from your old cards.
-----------------------------------------
What if the resources in your treasury and the active quest area are both available for you to use, but if you use them, it gets scooted farther away. Get rid of the limit on size of your treasury, and have all the resources in the game present at the start of the game.

Now you have to be careful about when you spend resources because they will be accessible by your opponent.

Upgrading resources in your treasury would be good because you have access to it first, but as soon as you start to use it, your opponent gets to use it later.

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 14:32

#8

let-off studios

Offline

Joined: 02/07/2011

More Gold = More Actions

questccg wrote:

I'm trying to figure out WHAT "income" could be useful for. At the start of the game you have zero (0) income... That means "income" needs to be something that facilitates play and is not part of the "core" mechanics. It's a sort of BONUS, something that smooths the game and as you advance in the game, makes the game more fluid.

Some games allow you to purchase more actions by spending gold. The Builders: Middle Ages comes to mind. If you had a lot of leftover gold, you could increase the number of actions you had in a single turn by spending it.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/144553/builders-middle-ages

Having a tableau of Stockpiles in front of the player is an interesting idea. On a turn, a player could either collect Gold or collect from one of the Stockpiles they had invested in during a previous turn. Maybe spending your spare gold - since you're not so clear at this point what it could be used for - allows players to collect from more than one Stockpile in a single turn?

In real life, more income typically provides more options. Maybe this is a streamlined method of incorporating that idea into your game.

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 15:16

#9

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

@Juzek: Let me explain my thoughts...

And then you can see if they are compatible with what it is that I am proposing.

Firstly, your LAYOUT is correct:

1. Opponent's Hand
2. Opponent's Treasury
3. The Active Quest (Shared by Both)
4. Your Treasury
5. Your Hand

IF we make the assumption that I am using Method #2 (Empty and growing over time), BOTH Treasuries start with zero (0) cards in them.

When you have a "Stockpile" card in your Hand (#5), you can play in into the Active Quest (#3). This card has a Victory Point count and since it is a "Stockpile" card, it also has the REQUIRED resources needed to SCORE it. Scoring is like "completing" a partial quest, thanks to a series of cards. When you COMPLETE the "partial" quest, THOSE CARDS in the Active Quest (#3) are played TOGETHER into your Treasury (#4), earning you +1 Income.

So if it took 4 cards to complete the quest, that means ALL FOUR (4) of those cards get ADDED to your Treasury (#4) as ONE (1) SET. And therefore earn +1 income (for the entire set).

If your GOAL is to be the FIRST player to complete THREE (3) Quests and then you are Victorious. So income is either +1 income or +2 income. Not too excessive ... But it can be used to PLAY a card from your "Treasury" (#4) into the "Active Quest" (#3) at the cost of 1 income.

1 or 2 income is NOT too much. And it's more like a POOL of income. What I mean is that your INCOME may be used to play *temporarily* one (1) income to enable your to have six (6) cards in-hand (#5)... Or it can be used to play a card from your Treasury (#4 to #3) into the Active Quest. And of course some income may be RAIDED from the Active Quest (#3) to your opponent's Treasury (#2) which can be used to earn an extra card in-hand (#1) or for some other purpose... (Indicated on the cards themselves).

And I think this explains that BOTH players are competing against each other... There are two (2) basic types of cards: Terrors and Heroisms.

Terrors are usually penalties or "bad things" you do to affect your opponent. Heroisms are always cards the player uses to advance his/her own agenda.

I'm now based on feedback and comments leading towards Option #1 (zero to start and building up as-you-go). So you don't have an insane amount of income (maybe at most 5 income per player)... So, a total of 10 yellow winks... It's not CUMULATIVE but instead POOLED for purposes... As I explained above (with the in-hand or playing a card from the Treasury).

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 15:31

#10

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

@let-off studios: not about accumulation, more like OPTIONS.

So in your case, I believe you are talking about Method #1. Where players start with five (5) cards and play them gradually into the Active Quest (#4 to #3). As I stated, it NOT about "accumulation", it's more like having additional "OPTIONS" you can do. Like a resource pool of "income".

But I'm NOT leaning towards Option #1 because I find Option #2 meshes all aspects of "Set Collection" which a (small) resource pool. And it can allow you to have CERTAIN cards ON-TOP of a SET which "affect" the Active Quest (#3)...

Like say I have the "Stolen Crown" and it's worth 3 points. But it could have a "Special Ability": when available from your Treasury, earn +2 income.

Something as SIMPLE as one card earning extra income. This effectively means that when you "activate" this card, you SPEND -1 income and earn +2 income for whatever use you desire...

The idea is that SETs in the Treasury (#2 and #4) can ONLY play the "top-most" card and have a BENEFIT for the corresponding player. Like the "Stolen Crown" mentioned above!

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 15:54

#11

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Also ...

I am leaning towards a total of 30 Victory Points to WIN the game. If you compute that among 3 to 5 "completed" quests, in the first case it would mean each set would be valued at 10 points. In the second case, it's about 6 points per "completed" quest.

It may be a bit HIGH... But playtesting will figure out the most appropriate score. But the idea is that aside from STRONG "Set Collection" mechanic there is also a very prominent "Engine Builder" too. This is NOT "Deck-Building" although I could see how one could confuse the two.

Some times people refer to "Deck-Building" as "Engine Building" because you build your Deck with the cards that you want... In my case, "Engine Building" is an accumulation of RESOURCES across various cards which translates to SETs. You don't actually build a DECK, instead you make cards available to HELP you try to WIN the game.

Note #1: I guess I should BETTER explain the difference. In the case of a "Deck-Builder", the cards you choose to BUY among the cards available to the player make it such that their DECK gets built the way they want it. And that's THEIR "engine" = their DECK.

In my case it's not about a DECK, it's about SETs. You try to collect and complete SETs. The more cards in your Treasury, the more OPTIONS you have to "call cards" from your Treasury (at the cost of -1 income).

While BOTH options are about CARDS, there is a fundamental difference in that when it's about SETs... It's got to do more with "Resource Planning": HOW are you going to allocate resources to the various cards in the "Active Quest" such that you complete ONE (1) "sub-quest" (at a time).

Wed, 08/19/2020 - 17:52

#12

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Another small comment...

Indeed your "resources" are available to BOTH you and your opponent. Not any "cards", only income + resources. So while the cards stay in play or are put into the "Treasury", you never "exchange" cards with your opponent.

As such, your Deck will remain the same with the SAME cards as you built it before (off-line Deck Construction). This is important because you want to ensure that players don't LOSE cards to their opponent. Like I said, there are other "elements" to the game that can be lost (permanently or temporarily).

For "resources" the loss is immediate and permanent. There's usually no way to "recover" a lost resource. It simply "slows" you down (mucks with your engine).

For "income" it is possible to monopolize some income by the opponent and for his own purposes. It can be immediate but the effect is TEMPORARY. You should be able to re-coup lost income on another turn (for example) or even later in the game (by stealing it back or by expiry of the effect).

So there is no "love-loss" between players. It is very much a competition to begin with!

User login

Navigation

Apr 19 2024

Apr 18 2024

Apr 16 2024

Apr 15 2024

Apr 13 2024

Apr 12 2024

Apr 9 2024

Apr 6 2024

Apr 4 2024

Apr 1 2024

Mar 28 2024

Mar 21 2024

Mar 20 2024

Mar 19 2024

Mar 13 2024

Mar 8 2024

Mar 5 2024

Mar 4 2024

Feb 28 2024

	Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (1) by questccg
	Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna

	TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg
	Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter