Skip to Content

Critique the May 2010 GDS games here!

17 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008

Use this thread to post constructive critiques of the entries to the May 2010 Challenge in the Game Design Showdown series.

This month's Challenge was entitled "Home Improvement".

-Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
My apologies for the delay!

Sorry about the delay, but I've finally posted the results of the May Game Design Showdown!

Congrats to the winner, Real Estate Madness by Simon Stump, and the runners up; Mansion by Dave Dobson and Cul de Sac by Richard Durham.

Now let's see some critiques!

dobnarr
dobnarr's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
My comments for the May entries

Entry #1: Short Sale –
I have often been intrigued by a market-based game, where costs of resources automatically move up and down, but they're hard to do in a boardgame setting. This entry follows that concept, but I find myself unable to imagine well how it plays out from the rules. There are too many parts not well specified – for example, in Phase 1, it says to rate the districts on a 1-6 scale, but there's no clear guidance on how to do that. The rules talk about renter tokens, but there's no explanation of where they come from or how they're acquired. The concept sounds like fun, but I don't know really know how to play this game from the rules. It also doesn't seem to incorporate all the challenge specifications.

Entry #2: The Money Pit –
This is better specified than #1 and sounds like a fun idea. But it's still not really complete - I have trouble imagining how it all looks and how it plays from the rules.

  • I would really like a "components" section in these rules – they go on to discuss all kinds of tiles and layouts, but it's hard to visualize these elements from the limited description here – e.g., what is the basement? What does the "pre-set" house include?
  • It also seems like there would be a lot of calculation involved here, with the 50,000 watt limit for power and the weight limit for floors.
  • I like the idea of a central pool of components without drawing, but it seems like the cheap ones would get purchased nearly immediately, and there wouldn't be a lot of strategy involved here.
  • I'd like some idea of what the disasters might be.
  • Seems to incorporate all the challenge specifications.

To sum up, a neat concept, with some good details, but not a complete set of rules – very difficult to imagine the final game from the documentation provided.

Entry #3: Real Estate Madness –
This is much better specified than the first two – I have much more of an idea how to play.

  • The worker placement part sounds interesting, and having the money, plans, and building materials worked in gives players a variety of resources to manage.
  • I like that the players get to design their strategy at the start, and can alter it as they go (for a cost).
  • The auctions for the building materials are neat – it adds an element of chance, but a manageable one, since the money and the worker placement are under player control.
  • The Neighborhood Associations secret goals are also a fun touch.
  • It seems to incorporate the challenge specifications

I can imagine this game being a lot of fun. It might be tricky to balance, but playtesting would presumably help with this.

Entry #4: Renovation Ninjas –
A neat idea, somewhat well specified by the rules, but with lots of details left out.

  • A dizzying array of components here – 236 cards, 6 tiles, 100 coins, 60 beads – this could be confusing to play, and it would definitely be prohibitively expensive and difficult to manufacture a copy. It would probably be easy to find ways to simplify.
  • The rules invoke a lot of cards and bits and skills and such without explaining how they'd work or giving examples of the cards and plans. It's kind of difficult to see how this would play with all of that unknown information.
  • I like the die rolling with skill modifiers, but I worry that the die rolling would become the major determination for who wins.
  • Worker happiness and salary is mentioned, and apparently worker happiness can change, but it's not clear how this happens.
  • Seems to meet some of the challenge specifications, but not necessarily all – it's not clear how the various building materials and plumbing are included, for example.

I think this could be fun, but I have trouble seeing how it all comes together. There's just too much left unspecified by the rule set.

Entry #5: Lowball Battle –

The components are clearly described, which is a great help. It looks like the game would play out well as described, and I think it could be fun, although it seems to have a fair amount of bookkeeping. But it's a complete game, and I can understand how to play from the rules. Some comments:

  • Like the previous one, there are a ton of parts to this game – it might get a little confusing to play.
  • The written bid process seems like a difficult mechanic. The results would be interesting, to be sure, but this might work better for an on-line game than for a boardgame.
  • The money seems a little fussy – lots of different denominations, and small amounts of money to manage. Streamlining this would be helpful, I think.
  • I like the recruiting mechanic, where the type of subcontractors is random, but you collect the subcontractors in groups of differing size. Very neat idea.
  • It seems to incorporate many of the challenge specifications, and some of the others are implied by the described components (e.g. materials, plumbing)

To me, this is one of the more complete entries, like #3. I think it would be a little less fun than #3 due to all the bookkeeping.

Entry #6: Mansion – this was my entry.

Entry #7: Archideck –
This set of rules invokes Dominion and seems heavily based on it; having never played that game or read the rules, I have a very hard time understanding these rules, since many of them are alterations of Dominion rules. There are a bunch of terms used which I suppose might make sense if I knew more about Dominion, but I can't puzzle them out from what's here. So, it seems pretty incomplete. The game seems to incorporate most of the challenge specifications, but I don't see how they all fit in. It may well be a super-fun game, but there's not enough here for me even to imagine how it would play.

Entry #8: Cul de Sac –
This is a neat entry – I like the melding of different mechanics and processes in the game.

  • The tetrominoes shapes are cool; you'd obviously have to be careful how you played your rooms to fit them in.
  • Having the plumbing on top of that seems neat, too, although I'm not sure it would be as fun.
  • The whole thing would look pretty impressive, especially with multi-floor buildings laid out in 3D, although I bet it would be terribly prone to collapse and falling over, which would ruin the game.
  • The bidding part seems over-complex and over-regulated – I guess I'm not sure what the purpose of some of the rules is (e.g. "No two players may place the same overall number of dollar tokens in the same turn!"). However, it seems like this setup creates a mechanism where people are kind of bribing other people to let them build a room they want to build, which is cool.
  • The concept seems quite creative; I bet it would need careful balancing with the rooms, rewards, and rules; it seems like, as written, there's a pretty big advantage to starting a second floor as soon as possible, and almost no incentive to expand the lower floors except as needed to support higher ones.
  • It seems to include the different contest challenges pretty well and pretty clearly.

A creative entry, and fun to imagine how it's all put together.

Votes:

#3 – 2 votes
#5 – 1 vote
#8 – 2 votes

simons
simons's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2008
May GDS Short Sale- Decent

May GDS

Short Sale- Decent idea. It makes good use of the home-building idea, and I like how there are several ways for a player to increase their wealth. You didn’t really make much use of the various mechanics that were required for this month’s challenge.

The Money Pit- Good use of theme. I really like the disaster idea, and how that seems to be a major component. I don’t know, games like this are a little less my style, but nothing really jumps out and grabs me.

Renovation Ninjas- Nice idea. I’m not really sure how it has anything to do with ninjas though. I actually like the simple dice-based mechanic. I’m not sure how I feel about player getting fired though. I’m also not sure what to think about the game not ending until everyone is done, it seems like you could get into a sticky situation if the player in the losing position (but far from being fired) can slow the game indefinitely.

Lowball Battle- (2 votes) I really like this one. It’s really simple, but a very interesting mechanic. I only had one suggestion: should the amount of money you have be somehow related to your level of respect? If not, then is there any harm in losing money on a bid (as long as you can still keep bidding)?

Mansion- (2 vote) Reading this game, I think it sounds just like my game (Real Estate Madness), except done better and cleaner, and with a better theme. Nice job!

Archideck- (1 vote) I love the description, “The deck-building game about building a deck.” Of all the games I’ve seen, this one really stands out as being different than all the other ones in the contest. It sounds fun, it sounds really interesting, but at some level it sounds too much like Dominion. Isn’t there a way you could differentiate yourself some? (maybe it’s a good idea to not describe it as so much like Dominion) Because I can’t help but feel like Dominion has a more interesting theme for the same set of rules. Wouldn’t it be better if you had a deck-building game that was really original (or at least a bit more original)?
*edit* That sounded harsher than I wanted it to. I do really think you have potential here, and I feel like that potential would be wasted by cloning another game. Have you checked out much in the way of other deck-building games?

Cul de sac- (1 vote) I think you’re the only player who included geometry in the game. I really like that, how there is some kind of need to make everything fit together. I like the mechanic where players build each other’s rooms, except that I think it might make it too easy to sabotage the leader. Also, I didn’t quite understand where wood/brick fit in to the picture, since it seemed like everything was based around whether a player offered to build your building or not.

oicu12b12
oicu12b12's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2009
I really enjoyed this month's

I really enjoyed this month's GDS. It was interesting to see how much variety there was in the games in light of the specific theme limits. I appreciate the humor that some of you subtly put into the themes of your games (The Money Pit, Renovation Ninjas, Archideck, and Cul De Sac). I tend to be too "serious" in my themes, so these always help me learn how to lighten up and make something more enjoyable.

I tend to place my votes by choosing the top three games, based upon completeness, clarity, fitting within the challenge requirements and overall fun of the game. This time I gave 3 to my first choice, 2 to my second and 1 to my third. On to the comments...

Short Sale - There are a couple of interesting ideas in this game. I like how players have the ability to work towards living off of their rentals and increase their action potential. I also like the thought of how purchases, renovations and sales might have an effect on other nearby properties. I think there is a lot going on in this game, more than what could be described in 800 words. What I would have liked to have seen was a little more clarity on how the certain actions or events actually play out in the game. There were several elements that were fuzzy or incomplete. With some streamlining and clarifications, this game could be an interesting housing market simulation.

The Money Pit - I really enjoyed this game's theme and found it to be humorous if not a bit painfully true. Much like the previous game, I think there are a lot of interesting ideas here, but the description falls short of being a complete game. I like the incorporation of building AND making repairs. But I wonder if the game would get too bogged down with having to draw a disaster card every time a tile was placed. The availability of power mechanic also seemed a little wonky. I wonder if better way to manage the amount of electrical usage would be to utilize limited numbers of power outlets on various room tiles. Clever game idea that could be quite fun with some polishing.

Real Estate Madness - (2 votes) I think this game has a lot of potential to be interesting and fun. Very true to the challenge, there is a good system of mechanics in play. The one thing I wish was different was the auction to get resources. It just feels thematically out of place. I wonder if a resource market would be a better fit. You could create a way so that the prices of the resources could go up as they became more scarce. And early bird players would have the option to purchase the lower prices if they placed their workers there. Overall, this seems like a game I would enjoy playing.

Renovation Ninjas - After reading the title and description, my mind immediately conceived of a highly interactive game where players would work on their own sections and then secretly sabotage the efforts of other players. What exists is a game that seems largely like multiplayer-solitaire that is very random and has a weak end-of-game condition. If there was a way to mitigate the randomness, make it more interactive beyond trying to sell drawn plans to other players, and had a stronger end-of-game, I think there could be a very fun game here.

Lowball Battle - my game. Thanks for the feedback given so far. I welcome feedback from others. I am fascinated with trying to create an auction mechanic that mimics the process of tendering bids for contracts (where the lowest bid wins). This month's GDS allowed for another opportunity to take a stab at it in a fun thematic way.

Mansion - (3 votes) This is a very nice game. I like how all the mechanics fit together with the theme. There are some interesting choices presented here, of which my favorite is how "wide" do I make my mansion before starting on the upper levels. I wonder if the bonuses for the upper levels may be a little high, but this could be refined through some playtesting. Overall, a fun sounding game that I would enjoy playing.

Archideck - I like the "pun-y" title. Sounds like an interesting game. Since it currently borrows heavily from Dominion, I would suggest working on it to make it stand out on its own. Also, I suggest presenting your ideas with confidence and not use up words from your 800 limit to apologize/explain its connections to another game. There's potential for a fun game here.

Cul De Sac - (1 vote) The story in this game is very creative. I like how the mechanics reflect the story, and like what others have said, I like that the game forces the players to consider 3 dimensions. There were a couple of things that were unclear to me, for instance, how do the wood and stone features play into the game, and do you purchase the resources for yourself or for the other players. Otherwise, a fun-sounding game that I think I would enjoy playing.

Congratulations to simons, dobnarr, and Richard Durham for your designs! Looking forward to what June has to bring us...

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
One at a time...Lowball

I dont' get much time to write, and when I do it's all at once - so I'll post feedback one at a time as I get to it.

Lowball Battle

I do like this game as a straight forward bidding contest. You get to earn money to lowball future bids by bidding high. I'd really like to know an ideal spread of costs for renovation permits and materials. Of course such things would be balanced during play testing, but since the starting money is $5000 I'll assume the anticpated range of costs will be in the multi-thousands per property.

I'd like to see if players end up bidding very similarly at the start, since they all start off with the same goal and at the same level, Since there's only one way to win (luscious, luscious Respect points from properties) we'd all be gunning for similar properties too.

What I really like is the subcontractors - they're a nice random set of resources that makes me want to pay the $50 to hold each over from turn to turn. Although I think either more property cards will need to be revealed each turn or less types of meeples used. As is, if 1 of 4 properties aren't bid on it must be pretty lousy, especially if a player can bid on more than one at a time. In fact, I'd *want* to bid on all of them, and just bid really high on the lousy ones on the chance I might make tons of money if not get respect.

Without property cards left each turn, hoarding meeples on the off chance they're the right ones might not pay off. And when the right property comes up I'll still need to bid low to get it - but I'll have spent lots of money hoarding my meeples and probably will be out-bid. It must seem like I'm sour on the sub-contractors - but I quite like it! Just running potential areas to playtest should you pursue this design (and should!)

oicu12b12
oicu12b12's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2009
Thanks, Rich

Rich,

Thanks for the extensive and thoughtful feedback on the game. Your thoughts are extremely helpful, and I hope you are able to find time to comment on the other entries as much as you did mine.

I definitely feel like the game will need extensive playtesting to make the economy work. The costs of the improvements, permits, etc. will have to create tense choices for players as they decide on which properties to bid. Here are a couple of my own wonderings, maybe which you or others in the community can process with me.

1) I wonder how to put a ceiling on the bid amounts. There is the possibility, like you mention, for players to bid really high on certain properties. It would break the game for someone to land a contract at a too-high price and then ridiculously lowball for the rest of the game. Perhaps a feature of the property cards (not the renovation cards) would be a "most willing to pay" amount. What I don't like is that it brings to light what would normally be hidden information. Is there a better way?

2) I wonder if having only four properties to bid on per turn is too static. Should there be a way to vary the number of properties needing renovations from turn to turn? Perhaps the number should increase as the game progresses? Maybe start with four but go up to six or eight? This would make the recruiting and holding-over meeples mechanics more interesting, but I think it would make the auctions less tense.

3) During the challenge, I considered making the theme a little less serious or modern. One thought that I almost proceeded with was to theme around renovating medieval housing. E.g., renovating castles, cottages, hovels and huts, etc. I suppose I could go the other way in time and go with futuristic homes. Does a historical, "fanticiful," or futuristic theme have a larger appeal than something realistic and modern?

Anyway, these are the thoughts kicking around in my head. I appreciate any additional feedback you may have.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Short Sale comments

I can, in fact, slowly comment on the others too... and later comment on your comment to my comment :)

Short Sale

It’s hard to comment on the mechanical portion of this game, since this succinct description leaves out a lot of the crunchies, like how do you physically “spend” your 8 hours investing and renovating (do you have a meeple that “moves” from building to building in turns with other players; do you have numbered tokens representing the hours you spend, and you assign them and resolve with other players simultaneously?) and how you get renters in your buildings, or other such things. The basic mechanic, though, of changing surrounding properties’ value by investment in your own is both realistic and awesome. It will give a great, classic tension to the “when is it high/too high to sell/buy?” with the benefit of it crashing surrounding property values when it sells – so the other players can’t sell for peanuts.

Many games I like to play have a good amount of player action-reaction (Catan, for a basic example) more than those with choice-exclusion interactions (like Agricola, for instance), and aren’t directed at other players (like Munchkin). Therefore, this is right up my alley!

Also, with the relatively market-realistic focus of this game, it lends itself well to quasi-educational institutions.

Since this description is mechanics light, analysis ends there, with the suggestion of losing the District Chart and incorporate it more solidly into the game – perhaps by having property cards that represent the house, or the information written where it’s needed, like in the property slots on the board.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
The Money Pit comments

Money Pit

I do love tile-laying decision making. In fact, this is one of the games I gave 2 points. Maybe because it’s so tactile, and that’s something board games have over other mediums. With that in mind, I’m curious how some of Money Pit’s variables (such as max floor weight, weight of objects in room, etc) will be tracked. Are they on the tiles? How about the money used to buy?

Secondly, I like playing the plumbing and electrical tiles – but wonder how they will fit in with the rest of the tiles – do they go between rooms? How do they connect to appliances? If they cut through rooms, do you not need floor tiles for those spots in the room? Really the constraints of this contest kept my curiosity from being satisfied.

Also, with a race against a house’s total devastation, I think this game would translate well to a cooperative experience, with figures moving around the house trying to repair the damage and renovate the house at the same time as disaster keeps striking. In fact, borrowing from Red November might be appropriate here in terms of “you can take as many actions as you like right now, but the more you take, the more disaster cards you’ll have to draw.”

This is another game I’d like to see grow, and then play. A lot.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Real estate Madness comments...

Real Estate Madness

This is another game I gave 2 points to. I mean, what DOESN’T it have? It has:
- Resource trading
- Ordered Bidding on limited resources
- Multiple paths to the Money victory
- Random sub-goals for extra points
- Worker placement

I’d really like to see all these elements work together and not overwhelm the feel of the game. Actually, I’m not sure what the feel would be on this game. I think it would primarily feel like a bidding game, and I really like how your bid order is locked in when you place your worker. This game really reminds me a wild-west game I didn’t finish for April’s worker-placement GDS, which makes me wonder if the mechanics aren’t too separated from the theme to make either a really ace game.

I’m curious what the point spread will be like for the buildings, and how many a player must choose at the start. Please clarify if this interpretation is incorrect, but the player’s main source of money is completed buildings, and thus players are competing for the resources to complete the buildings, with bonus points for personal Neighborhood Association goals and ending materials. Players should not be able to win by focusing on points through materials or day-laborers.

With this in mind, I’m not sure all the negative points for incomplete buildings are needed, since those players will be behind anyway for not *gaining* points for buildings. This might encourage them to try and make up for some points with the other sources toward the end of the game. With negative points, the incentive to move away from building construction is weak, since by devoting resources to gaining day laborers or materials, they will have more incomplete buildings….and yet, those are used to build anyway, so *clearly* I should build, build, build. So why negative points? Please clarify!

Anyway, I liked the play thoughts quite a bit. I’d love to play it, especially if it was on a board rather than what seems like a series of card decks ;)

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Renovation Ninjas comments

Renovation Ninjas

I have a lot of questions with Renovation Ninjas, and I think it’s because these nice lists of rules point out a lot of specifics (hard to do in these 800 words), but with just lists it’s hard to tie all the bits together into a cohesive picture. For instance, you’ve already detailed the breakdown of cards in each deck (impressive), but I’d really like to know more about the Client cards – like do you get one every turn, does everyone get to see it, what’s an example of building requirements?
Some more things I think are nice are the idea of using the worker skill as a risk mitigation on your construction. Again, I’d like to know more about the workers, who seem essential to this game.
Feed me! 

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Mansion comments...

Mansion

Clearly, real estate elicits bidding games. Mansion is nice and simple, complete, well described, with no distractions from errant mechanics. This simple beauty is the heart of a lot of games, and I think this one could be right up there with them with development. For instance, the bidding is quick and consistent. But over 20 turns, the stakes never really change, nor do tactics – since the rooms available are randomized.

I think a great example to steal from in a bidding game that changes over time without introducing new mechanics is “Revolution!” In it, as the game reaches conclusion players bid heavily on actions that let them switch and replace victory point positions with other players, or on actions that net them instant points. With the inclusion of interaction between the players as a *result* of the bidding might spice things up here, too.

In its current form, I think this game is ideal for introducing the form to a younger crowd, or a crowd inexperienced with bidding games, since the concept is so immediately graspable. Good job on finding the essential mechanic so often clouded in other games!

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Archideck comments...

Dominion. What a game changer. It may not have been the first or best to have deck building and optimization as the core mechanic, but man is it going to go down as one of the most influential. And why shouldn’t it? Archideck sounds like a nice twist on the mechanical theme (In particular, I liked the game end condition).

I’d like to know more about the six basic structures – do the production-track buildings let you draw and buy more cards each turn? I’m imagining game play around the frame of Dominion, which you clearly intended, but am having trouble picturing some of the play based on the description. Do I “buy” a structure each turn, and then while it’s in front of me I play raw materials until it is complete? Is that when it upgrades to the higher scoring version? How do I keep track of raw materials I’ve used? Do they come out of my deck and go under the structure I’m playing them on?

None of those things happen in Dominion, so I need some help imagining how they’ll go. For a highly-mechanics based game, that’s what I’d like to see play out.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Cul de Sac

This one’s mine, so I’ll address others’ comments and changes I’d make to this couple hour long mess of design.

The 3d nature of this is very important, so the “Structure” cylinders you buy would be comfortably squat to allow placing of tiles on top. The physical prevention of players from placing more pieces below means they’d have to build lower levels outward rather than one room upward (especially since the pieces are different shapes!)
One rule I forgot to write is that if it falls (should be highly unlikely) that you lose the upper floors and the pieces go back in your pool.

The Stone and Wood consideration was only in which *type* of Structure point you bought, and made the room more valuable. Granted, this should be more developed than higher price = higher point, since you can’t mix and match and your income is set each turn.

The bidding process has the rule of “no two players placing the same overall amount” because in the next phase, the person who spent the most here gets to pick first the next round. This hopefully would make up for losses if they picked a profitable piece, or would let them pick a truly unfortunate piece for someone else.

And you’re all right, it does mean you’re bribing others to let you get the piece you need, and yes, it does mean that someone with only 1 piece left probably won’t get theirs picked. But that means they can spend their money on other things (piping) for points.

I’d hope that it’d be hard for one player to get so far out in the lead that the others didn’t think they could ‘take im’ with a well-planned bribe of their neighbor or some such. I’d like to find out.

Looking forward to next month! Er. Next week!

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
richdurham wrote:The 3d

richdurham wrote:
The 3d nature of this is very important, so the “Structure” cylinders you buy would be comfortably squat to allow placing of tiles on top. The physical prevention of players from placing more pieces below means they’d have to build lower levels outward rather than one room upward

Somehow this made me think of the following, which might be fun... suppose room tiles were square (or whatever shape, really), and had 0 or 1 hole in them. Now suppose that these holes are for pipes to come through. A hole means it requires a pipe (or maybe it's just an option, and something on the tile indicates if it's required or not).

Imagine a game piece which is like a 3-d tetris piece, but thin and would fit through the holes - piping.

And then you could have support pieces which are cylinders or cubes or whatever. Maybe the tiles have certain shapes in certain places which indicates what kinds of support pieces go on top of them. So you end up stacking the pieces on top of each other, with piping as required snaking up through the building...

I don't know if I've explained it clearly or not, but this is kind of intriguing.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
sedjtroll wrote: Somehow this

sedjtroll wrote:

Somehow this made me think of the following, which might be fun... suppose room tiles were square (or whatever shape, really), and had 0 or 1 hole in them. Now suppose that these holes are for pipes to come through. A hole means it requires a pipe (or maybe it's just an option, and something on the tile indicates if it's required or not).

Imagine a game piece which is like a 3-d tetris piece, but thin and would fit through the holes - piping.

And then you could have support pieces which are cylinders or cubes or whatever. Maybe the tiles have certain shapes in certain places which indicates what kinds of support pieces go on top of them. So you end up stacking the pieces on top of each other, with piping as required snaking up through the building...

I don't know if I've explained it clearly or not, but this is kind of intriguing.

I really like this. I am having difficulty thinking of a way to make this work, though. The piping would either have to be there first, which seems unlikely, or the building would have to be disassembled to put the piping in and then pieces lowered in sequence down on it.

Even more workable is the different shaped pieces for structure support. This makes it easy to have required materials for rooms, and thus force varied construction materials.

Sweet. I like your thoughts.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
richdurham wrote:sedjtroll

richdurham wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:

Somehow this made me think of the following, which might be fun... suppose room tiles were square (or whatever shape, really), and had 0 or 1 hole in them. Now suppose that these holes are for pipes to come through. A hole means it requires a pipe (or maybe it's just an option, and something on the tile indicates if it's required or not).

Imagine a game piece which is like a 3-d tetris piece, but thin and would fit through the holes - piping.

And then you could have support pieces which are cylinders or cubes or whatever. Maybe the tiles have certain shapes in certain places which indicates what kinds of support pieces go on top of them. So you end up stacking the pieces on top of each other, with piping as required snaking up through the building...

I don't know if I've explained it clearly or not, but this is kind of intriguing.

I really like this. I am having difficulty thinking of a way to make this work, though. The piping would either have to be there first, which seems unlikely, or the building would have to be disassembled to put the piping in and then pieces lowered in sequence down on it.


I was thinking that you would build floor by floor, so you couldn't put in a floor without the required pipes underneath.

This means that (a) a floor you want to put in may require a pipe in a specific location, or else (b) a pipe you've already placed might necessitate a floor with a hole in a specific location.

It could also be the case that if you're not careful, supports and pipes will be in the way of each other (and therefore won't be placeable).

Quote:
Even more workable is the different shaped pieces for structure support. This makes it easy to have required materials for rooms, and thus force varied construction materials.

True!

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Quote:I was thinking that you

Quote:
I was thinking that you would build floor by floor, so you couldn't put in a floor without the required pipes underneath. This means that (a) a floor you want to put in may require a pipe in a specific location, or else (b) a pipe you've already placed might necessitate a floor with a hole in a specific location.

I think what I am saying is that if the pipe is shaped like a tetris piece, how will you get it to go through the hole on multiple floors. But now, I see what's going on. The piece only goes through that section of floor, but dangles down below it to "connect" up with the piece from the floor below. The top pipe rests on the floor because it's tetris shaped and won't fit through the hole. That shape then causes the pipe to appear in a different location on the next floor up.

This would be great for a tower-building game, as you'd need to build up up and up. Also worth looking in to :)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut