Skip to Content
 

Design paralysis

10 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Correct me if the spelling is wrong.

Ok, here is the thing. I got to a point where I am ready to design the cards and the correct costs are automatically calculated from the stats. (That is how I work). Since this is balanced to the bone. I don't have to worry about it at this point. No matter what I put together.
There is still RPS in damage versus armor. But also in meat/support vs average.

The crossroad that I reached is different than the one I had with my wargames.
So, I got like a lot of options. Really a lot.
Like, idk: tier^2 * 12 * 12! Or something. It is over a million for sure.

So, how to proceed now?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm confused...?!

What's over a million for sure??? What is "tier^2 x 12 x12"??? I'm not sure I understood what was the "question"???

X3M wrote:
So, how to proceed now?

I fail to understand what the PROBLEM is...? A Million units? A Million outcomes? A Million possibilities? A Million WHAT???

I think a lot of time you are in touch with your own thoughts ... But you have a way of posting a lot of THOUGHTS which all make sense to YOU... But that are too baffling for most of us. You're a bit a stickler for "mathematical modeling" and not realizing that there are OTHER aspects of a design that can be EVEN MORE important that the math.

But just be more explicative to WHAT it is you are explaining.

Sometimes it takes me like 3 or 4 times of re-reading a TL;DR post which has some explanation... But I'm often not sure WHY you are questioning yourself so much... especially when it comes to MATH.

I've finalized MY combat MATH a month ago. Meanwhile you seem to still be unsure about what to needs to be worked on ... Or that there are too many possibilities...!?

Anyways just try to include some EXPLANATION for the REST of us. Cheers @X3M!

Note #1: That doesn't mean that my own version is final either... I too have some challenges and obstacles to think about also. I will post when I get some fresh solutions to them... As I ponder them further!

Note #2: And when I do get the time to sit down and READ a TL;DR comment ... I do so because I want to be helpful. But many times I am a bit at a loss of words... Because this means a couple NEW TL;DR comments which may seem repetitive for you ... Just because it takes me time to comprehend what is the source of your issue/problem.

But know that I do my BEST even if this involves many TL;DR comments. I TRY!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
too much

I can design too much options.
So, I can't decide where to start.

It looks like, I don't need to design with logic any more.
This in regards to other properties of the cards.

There is no "best" design to counter a previous design.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... Not sure about that!?

X3M wrote:
I can design too much options. So, I can't decide where to start.

What do you mean by "too much options"? You mean the number of units. Usually I come up with alternate realities. Like if it costs $100 USD to license a photograph of some kind of Jeep or F16 ... That will find a definite way to reach you in the GAME'S BUDGET. So no you can't design TOO MUCH OPTIONS: you're not rich enough for that.

X3M wrote:
It looks like, I don't need to design with logic any more.
This in regards to other properties of the cards.

There is no "best" design to counter a previous design.

What is it you are trying to achieve??? Something REAL or just a PLAYABLE prototype. Since I have now done three (3) COMPLETED designs ... I fully well know the COST associated with MAKING games. It is those kind of facts that make Game Design difficult.

The idea is to basically start with a cross-section of the MINIMUM required to PLAY a game. This is NOT Magic where you need 300+ cards to make the game. That's another reason why I have chosen NOT to make my version anything like Magic. TBH Magic is too costly in terms of what needs to be done.

Meanwhile Dominion and a Deck-Builder requires a Fraction of the requirements to make a final product. Because there is so much REPETITION ... It is much easier to design such a version.

In any case, I fail to understand the whole "Best Design" comment. Are you saying you don't know what to do NEXT???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That is correct. The start and path are unknown.

Here is an example of my prototype version:

We start with a rifleman.
Tier 1 armor, tier 1 damage, 1 die, range 2, movement 2, accuracy 83%.

One of the factions gets a counter through range.
The Ranger infantry.
Tier 1 armor, tier 1 damage, 2 or 3 or 4 dice, range 3 or 4 or 5, movement 2, accuracy between 50 and 83%.

I have several option that give the feeling of a Ranger infantry. 3 options in dice, 3 options in the weapon range and 3 options in the accuracy.
That is 27 options.

The combat mechanic works in such a way, that I can calculate which design works the most optimal when....:
For a single use.
For a use as a group.
For a special action use.
For using them with other existing units in that faction.

That kind of design is fun to do.
And we can get a clear goal or even choices that matter. Each choice can be part of a faction too.

Bottomline is:
The design will be the best choice for a certain situation. Making the most kills.

***

Now for the card game.

We start with a rifleman.
Tier 1 armor, tier 1 damage, multiplier of 1, accuracy 50%

The Ranger Infantry...
We don't have range.
Tier 1 armor, tier 1 damage, multiplier of 2 or 3 or 4, accuracy between 50 and 87.5%. Maybe different accuracies per projectile.
There are 1548 options here.
If I have only 1 accuracy for all projectiles, we cut down to 18 option.

The combat mechanic is very simplified.

There is no movement (in the example not important)
There is no weapon range
Which has as concequence, that there are less strategic options.
Like making use of the map. Attacking from a distance. Sneaking up on the enemy. Simply throwing in an overkill.

For a single use, this unit will not do.
A group has no real concequences, except for they are cheaper support. But then a player might as well choose snipers.
There are no actions either.
They can only be used with other units to protect them.

If only one situation matters. Only one optimal design is to be expected, right?
There is also no proper "give me cover" mechanic.
So that one just went flying too.

Each option has its own costs. And there are many with the same costs. The different designs only show different risks in using them when having a different multiplier. It is like having a green 2/2 creature for 2 green or a red 2/2 creature for 2 red.

Only true differences can still be attributes. But that's it. And they actually add more options without making a design the most preferred.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Scenarios & Campaigns

Now that you have the numbers and calculations sorted out to your satisfaction, might now be time for you to start thinking - and designing - in terms of scenarios and campaigns? There are dozens of wargames that were designed to simulate historical situations. Could you create one of these kinds of simulations with what you have available now?

I suggest this because you can use the historical references you're working with in order to thematically or historically narrow down your smorgasbord of choices to maybe a few dozen realistically-simulated ones. After you have a reasonably-accurate simulation of a historical scenario, use the process as a template to help you develop sci-fi versions.

Start with a smaller, contained scenario and then build up from there. Create some artificial boundaries for yourself and you may find at least a direction to pursue for a first attempt.

Good luck! :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:Now

let-off studios wrote:
Now that you have the numbers and calculations sorted out to your satisfaction, might now be time for you to start thinking - and designing - in terms of scenarios and campaigns? There are dozens of wargames that were designed to simulate historical situations. Could you create one of these kinds of simulations with what you have available now?
The problem is with the card game. I don't think I can make a scenario. After all, scenario's with MtG are not possible either... right?
With my proto-type board game?? No problems. The topic is about my luxury problem in the card game.

let-off studios wrote:
I suggest this because you can use the historical references you're working with in order to thematically or historically narrow down your smorgasbord of choices to maybe a few dozen realistically-simulated ones. After you have a reasonably-accurate simulation of a historical scenario, use the process as a template to help you develop sci-fi versions.
Hey, this is a good idea. I could try to find some numbers out there that describe the overal effectivness in terms of "losses". And select the right design for that.

let-off studios wrote:
Start with a smaller, contained scenario and then build up from there. Create some artificial boundaries for yourself and you may find at least a direction to pursue for a first attempt.

Good luck! :)


Thanks!

The artificial boundaries is my goal.

So, it used to be the most optimal designs. And as how you described it, something close to the RL situations. And scenario's.

So I need to find something for the card game.
It sucks that I can't see a scenario thing happening. But a RL situation can be copied.

Another option. Trying to keep the next choice to be as cheap as possible.
So, if I where to design the Ranger Infantry. It would cost +1 on top of the Rifle Infantry. I cut out like 2/3th already.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I read your thread in

I read your thread in diagonal. From what I understand, you have a large number of permutations for unit stat design and you don know where to start?

There are various approach that you can use, and I have been myself stuck with this problem with my Rats Craft idea where I needed to design 32 different unit types. Here is a couple of ideas:

  • First, you can improvise. Use a subset of units, assign semi-random stats, simulate battle and take the look and feel. Refine with the play tests. Add more units as you progress. For a modern war game, you could start with a limited set of land units, then add more specialized land units, then add helicopters, then planes, then ships, etc.

  • If you want the game to be expandable, lot of possibilities is a good thing. If not, then you can reduce your stat space. For example, in my Rats Craft game, I am thinking in using only binary stats.

  • Make sure you cover your possibility space. Make sure that your unit design has a bit of everything in your possibility space. Don't leave some potential stats or behavior behind.

  • Make a confrontation matrix. In my Rats Craft game, even if I use die roll, I can know which unit can kill which unit by making a matrix of attacker and defender. This way, you can evaluate what are the potential of a single unit or an entire faction. It allows determining if units or a faction is too weak or too strong.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thanks for the response

larienna wrote:
I read your thread in diagonal. From what I understand, you have a large number of permutations for unit stat design and you don know where to start?

There are various approach that you can use, and I have been myself stuck with this problem with my Rats Craft idea where I needed to design 32 different unit types. Here is a couple of ideas:

Oof, 32, that's a lot too.

larienna wrote:

* First, you can improvise. Use a subset of units, assign semi-random stats, simulate battle and take the look and feel. Refine with the play tests. Add more units as you progress. For a modern war game, you could start with a limited set of land units, then add more specialized land units, then add helicopters, then planes, then ships, etc.
I will start with the basics first indeed. Air and other stuff are "expansion" idea's. The only exception are the mines for the blue faction.

larienna wrote:
* If you want the game to be expandable, lot of possibilities is a good thing. If not, then you can reduce your stat space. For example, in my Rats Craft game, I am thinking in using only binary stats.
Ah, my way is going for a basic set. Then add the smallest differences that have a tactical influence on the game.

larienna wrote:
* Make sure you cover your possibility space. Make sure that your unit design has a bit of everything in your possibility space. Don't leave some potential stats or behavior behind.
I am doing this with the faction theme's. Maybe you have seen this post in the massive topic. But the idea is to have basic designs for a faction. And then add 3 theme's. Some of the basic designs will be slightly different than the designs on the blue faction (default faction if you will) But the differences will be slightly guided towards the theme's as well if possible.

larienna wrote:
* Make a confrontation matrix. In my Rats Craft game, even if I use die roll, I can know which unit can kill which unit by making a matrix of attacker and defender. This way, you can evaluate what are the potential of a single unit or an entire faction. It allows determining if units or a faction is too weak or too strong.
This is the RPS matrix. I called it a table. The effectivness is equal for the same letters:

ABC
BAD
CDA

Then again, I think that if you consider these to be a 3x3 designs. You are actually talking about a 9x9 matrix of designs versus designs?

***

Maybe, just maybe. I should make a default design. And each faction will only be the theme's. Because some designs hardly have any differentiations.
More to ponder on. But I got a day off, for other stuff :)

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It not exactly RPS,

It not exactly RPS, especially if there is no RPS mechanism in your game. A basic table example if we consider 4 units fighting each other where the attacker is on the left and the defender on the top:

-ABCD
AX-X-
B-X--
CX-XX
D--X-

X : Attacker kills the defender - : Nothing happens

From this table we could see that D is pretty hard to destroy, only unit C, the strongest unit in the lot can kill it. Maybe a different unit should get this benefit.

You can expand this table with probabilities: 20% or 50% chance to kill. Or with required upgrades: Kill unit when upgraded.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I could easily do that

There are several table's like the one you mentioned.

A clean 1 v 1 table. Where cheaper cards are simply weaker.

A equal value table. Where you compare equal value's, thus some sides have more cards or pieces. But this is cumulative.

An infinity table. Where we calculate as if both players have an equal ammount of "infinity".

Then we can choose to either have a win/tie/loss table. A percentage as you put it. Or a k/d ratio table.

I prefer the percentage table as well. Where 100% means, 100% effective. This due to the fact that I have walls and stuff. :D

***

Now, here is a question for you. What do you do if you have a game designed in such a way that some cards take the hit, while others do the damage?

I have a shit-ton of those tbh. And to make matters worse. I once tried for my proto-type game. A maximum (not infinite, nor the smallest cumulative) region filled with units.

I pitted X of 6 riflemen and Y of 1 light tank. Where X+Y=6

Thus I had 36 riflemen, 30 riflemen + 1 light tank, 24 riflemen + 2 light tanks, etc. till 6 light tanks.
It was a 7x7 table.

Eventually I had to ask my cousin for a simulator. Since the combat could be pretty complex.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut