I've been working on the box design and I think I'm ready to send the rest off to my illustrator to make three variations of the card back/box cover. There are going to be three different colored decks differentiated by the card back and corresponding box featuring the card back on the front, to play with more than 3 people you need more than one deck. The function of this design is to make it easy for players to sort the decks after the game is over based on the card back and to obviously inform the customer what deck they are buying in the store.
This is achieved by the color on the side (in this instance red) and the corresponding shape to that color in the game (hexagon).
Right now the yellow circle is on the front and is the wrong shape for this red box. The correct featured shape in the center of the card back for this box would be the red hexagon.
Comments
a fair warning...
Because I've gone down a route similar to yours (perhaps a bit different), never the less I wanted to make you aware of some facts.
You mention that to PLAY with more than 3 people "you need more than one deck".
While this sounds all okay in your own mind... You have to be made aware of the backlash from players. Namely the folks that enjoy playing 4 players and up.
I had a bit a convoluted business model myself: I was selling 1 Player Game Boxes and each player needed their own box to play. Now while I thought it was cool logistically (each player has their own deck of cards, dice and rulebook), it was not well received by gamers.
Now that I have a Publisher for my game, we designed a 4 Player Big Box which allows from 1 to 4 players to enjoy the game. It was much widely accepted and heralded as a blessing as compared to the old "1 Player Game Boxes"...
So while YOU might think it's cool that your game works with 3 players and that you need to buy a SECOND box to allow from 4 to 6 players (assuming)... You might not get a positive reaction by gamers who might like the game.
My advice (and I don't know if I would have agreed with myself before...) is that either MARK the game for "3 players" (or 2 to 3 players) and leave it at that. OR make a box that is capable of having "4 players" (and more if you desire to do so...)
I would have been too stubborn to say "1 Player Game Boxes" are a COOL innovation in the industry: look every one has their own box and cards. BUT the REAL reality is that PARENTS who BUY and PAY for games, want a one-time up-front cost and get it for a certain amount of players...
They're not going to like "For 4 Players you need to buy 2 boxes"... Or anything like that. Just a fair warning to you. I know you'll probably ignore this warning... But I'm just letting you know what people thought of my innovative business model...
Cheers mate!
Now my REAL advice is...
Put TWO (2) DECKS into that one box and say it allows from 2 to 6 players!
You'll save yourself a lot of people complaining that they need to buy an extra box for a game that is "incomplete" with only 1 deck.
That's my advice... Go for more, sell for a little more ($$$) and everyone is going to be happy getting a more "complete" game.
Cheers.
Just to be clear, I think
Just to be clear, I think you're saying that one box comes with three identical (except for back color) decks, and for 4-6 you need to buy two boxes.
So (questccg), putting two "decks in a box" is really putting 6 decks in a box, which is probably too much. If the game works with 4 players, then I'd ask why you decided on 3 decks rather than 2 or 4.. 3 is a weird number.
Oh, I wasn't super clear I
Oh, I wasn't super clear I guess. One deck plays 2-3 people, two decks plays 3-6, and three play 7-9. There will be three different deck backs and boxes (to help sorting after two+ decks are combined) but the decks faces and card counts are all identical.
On the kickstarter there will be options to buy 1, 2, or 3 decks with some price incentives. Initially when I hit stores it will be single decks but I can imagine making another sku to get all three at once in a special box or something. If players really wanted to they can play 4 on one deck it's just not "recommended" as the games go a bit faster.
Oh boy... this looks pretty ... complicated!
This is achieved by the color on the side (in this instance red) and the corresponding shape to that color in the game (hexagon).
Right now the yellow circle is on the front and is the wrong shape for this red box. The correct featured shape in the center of the card back for this box would be the red hexagon.
I fear that you are making assumptions about your Game's FORMAT... It's probably even MORE "convoluted" that just have 1 Box Per Player!
I think you are ASSUMING that having three (3) BOXES with different content will net you 3x the amount of SALES... That kind of thinking is wrong. By adding different COLORS/SHAPES to different BOXES you are doing a great dis-service to the people who will resell your game...
First of all in a STORE, if you get lucky you might be able to PLACE ONE (1) SKU. The odds that stores will carry all THREE (3) is rare. Why is this you ask? Well more SKUs = more shelf space = more STOCK investment, etc. Basically you're competing with OTHER games for SHELF space. And you have THREE (3) products instead of one (1)...
See what I mean???
If you are planning to sell THREE (3) different boxes with three (3) different decks... (which I think I have understood correctly), you're going to have problems with retailing UNLESS you sell everything ONLINE via your own web store or Amazon, etc.
But having MULTIPLE products of the SAME thing ... will lead to BUYER CONFUSION. I can just picture it now... And it won't be good. You're going to say: "An informed buyer will know what each box is for!"
You've already made your OWN mistake putting the Circle instead of the Hexagon. Imagine the consumers who don't really know what your game is?
Is it good for a Kickstarter??? Depending on the price point, maybe selling separate products might be good. Like say $20 a box or $50 for all three. That could work for a KS... But you'd have to be sure about your MOQ. And that's your "Minimum Order Quantity" from your manufacturer. You might get put out and need to make 1,500 units (500 of each) if you want to sell three (3) boxes... See what I mean?
Anyways ... I know you won't believe me (I didn't either until I went through the process myself — and learned).
Right now your game format seems "inaccessible". I believe you have THREE (3) distinct decks ... and one deck can only play 3 players.
My advice to you will surprise you:
+ Make TWO (2) products!
Box #1 has 2 decks players from 2 to 6 players.
Box #2 has 2 decks and also allows from 2 to 6 players... But you'll need to create a NEW "deck". A challenge (look at it that way).
This way on KS you can have 2 SKUs and in stores it might be possible to get two items (if not maybe retail #2 online only Amazon or your own web store).
This will reduce your MOQ to 500 units, KS ONE BOX AT A TIME!
I was thinking all three
I was thinking all three colors would be the same SKU but if retailers don't like that, I can always just run two different colored boxes in the store. My guess is that player groups of 7 and above will not be a very high percentage.
Most games are for up to 4 players
Some newer Publishers like it to be 5 or 6...
But what you should be thinking is THIS: start with 1 Box (2 to 6 players with 2 Decks) and a MOQ (Minimum Order Quantity) of 500 units.
That's your goal. See how much you need in terms of funds to make that happen.
Best!
Try not to confuse the CONSUMER
One good thing I can say about "1 Box = 2 Decks" is that BOTH of your boxes will allow INDEPENDENT play from 2 to 6 players.
Which BOX they buy... IDK. That has to do with some MARKETING.
My direction would be this:
+ Sell the ORIGINAL box to RETAILERS.
+ Sell the Box #2 ONLINE only via your own web store.
This will allow you to DOUBLE your profit on Box #2... And allow you to get the game into more people hands by retailing Box #1. Simple. No confusion.
Jordan Laine wrote:I was
That is literally the opposite of what a SKU is :)
It's possible that you could get away with three different things, but.. if I was a game store, how would I place an order? You'd just send me stuff at random?
It would also be three different items from the perspective of manufacturing, so I'm hoping you've already checked with a manufacturer to be sure that your MOQ didn't just triple.
(I mean, I couldn't have a box with components ABCDEF, and another one with ABCDEG without resetting my MOQ for the second SKU)
If a deck is only 54 cards, it's not too pricey to include two in your box, so perhaps consider having two decks, both included, and the game plays 2-6 players.
questccg wrote:Some newer
Hah, I should've read all the way down, because you already said what I said.
hi. i dont really have much
hi. i dont really have much to add just to echo the sentiments of the other posters. its ok to say " sets can be combined for extra players" somewhere at the back of your rule book as a little bonus for any one who wants to play with more. but don't make it part of the u.s.p. people (mostly parents) will just feel like its yet another collection they will have to buy- and then your competing with all the LCGs and CCGs which you (as a new company) have no chance of doing (even the big companies struggle to add new ones to the market). keep it simple. if it does make it big you can always add extra decks to the line later (either as expansions or standalone decks)
also i think your point about making it easier to un-combine sets is unnecessary (if the only difference is the backs). there are countless 2 deck card games (traditional cards) and it is never difficult to separate them afterwards. once people know each deck contains 6As 5Bs and 4Cs they should be able to separate them easily- and if they can't they should probably be playing much simpler games.
Very interesting food for
Very interesting food for thought!! I can also expand a single deck to play up to four players with some added cards and a pretty simple rule change for playing with less players. Out of curiosity, why the necessity for 6 player support on the minimum high end? Do publishers want this because they want more games that compete in the "party/large group game" category? Is this want a direct reflection of what the consumer wants, are more people playing games in larger groups?
Here's my dilemma with that, there are twenty one unique cards in a deck (fifteen 1-15 [1, 2, 3, 4...] and six different anycards [1-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-15, 1-15]); a deck consists of 90 cards total without instruction cards and atm plays 2-3 people. 180 cards in 21 different cards is a lot of stuff to sort! Do you think players will be willing to make 21 piles and sort each card at the end of a 15 min min pickup game?
Do you have to SORT them???
Or can you simply play with a PRE-RANDOMIZED deck??? Out-of-the-box you could get your manufacturer to SORT and "shrink-wrap" the cards in specific units. Unless you plan to use "The Game Crafter" where NO sorting is permitted.
How does 21 unique cards become 90???
Yes some people are interested in 6 Player games... For a party crowd. It's not strictly a Party Game per se... But it can be light-hearted and FUN for just a little bit larger crowd. Otherwise the next size that matters is 4 Players. Most games accommodate 4 Players... That's why I said 2 Decks = up to 6 Players could be good too (and covering your bases for the 4 Player constraint).
But if you can manage to get the game to 4 Players with ONE (1) deck (and only have to change a rule...) well that might also be viable solution too. Makes it less expensive (less cards, well only 1 deck) and you can play up to 4 Players.
Maybe go with that... If the rule change is not so complexe.
questccg wrote:Or can you
Wait, wat? lol, why would I need a randomized deck?
How does 21 unique cards become 90???
There are 21 card faces and 90 cards total. Each deck contains more than one of each card face. Box dump in the photo.
http://www.mustnotsleepgames.com/Games/CountIt/Count_It_Box_Flop01.jpg
Yes some people are interested in 6 Player games... For a party crowd. It's not strictly a Party Game per se... But it can be light-hearted and FUN for just a little bit larger crowd. Otherwise the next size that matters is 4 Players. Most games accommodate 4 Players... That's why I said 2 Decks = up to 6 Players could be good too (and covering your bases for the 4 Player constraint).
But if you can manage to get the game to 4 Players with ONE (1) deck (and only have to change a rule...) well that might also be viable solution too. Makes it less expensive (less cards, well only 1 deck) and you can play up to 4 Players.
Maybe go with that... If the rule change is not so complexe.
That balancing is pretty simple to do, I'll just need to get some reps in with different sized groups of play testers. That also would give me the option to sell a second colored deck back. Which means less work for the illustrator. Yeah, I'm going to balance it up to 4 players haha.
Jordan Laine wrote:Here's my
Here's my dilemma with that, there are twenty one unique cards in a deck (fifteen 1-15 [1, 2, 3, 4...] and six different anycards [1-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-15, 1-15]); a deck consists of 90 cards total without instruction cards and atm plays 2-3 people. 180 cards in 21 different cards is a lot of stuff to sort! Do you think players will be willing to make 21 piles and sort each card at the end of a 15 min min pickup game?
.. no.
Also, I'd say 4 player support is probably mandatory, but 6 is optional.
I assume 90 is.. 4 of each number and 5 of each wild?
Could most likely add 14 more cards without increasing the manufacturing cost, if that's needed to bump this to 4 players with one pack.
Jay103][quote=Jordan Laine
I assume 90 is.. 4 of each number and 5 of each wild?
Could most likely add 14 more cards without increasing the manufacturing cost, if that's needed to bump this to 4 players with one pack.
Bingo! In the rules ATM, in a four player game, 40 cards are on the table to start the game (five in each players hand and five face up in front of them). I'll probably have to pad the deck a little more than 14 cards, as cards get used fast and once they are out of the game they don't come back till the next game. But that's fine, I'll just adjust the price of the deck to reflect the cost.
Depending on your exact
Depending on your exact rules, you could also treat the exhausted deck as trigger for the end of the game.
Also, when I said 14 cards, I obviously meant 18 cards :) So five of everything would fit nicely (106 total)
Jay103 wrote:Depending on
End game is when no one can play anymore. Exhausted cards are collected by the player that exhausts them and those cards count as points in the end of the game.
Also, when I said 14 cards, I obviously meant 18 cards :) So five of everything would fit nicely (106 total)
Right now on the low end I have 30 cards per person (3 players & 90 cards) so I'd need at minimum to add another 30 (120 total). I may be able to balance that down a bit by decreasing the count of both the hand size and the cards up in front of the player to four, but at this point I need to playtest it to make sure that isn't going disrupt the flow of the game. To counterbalance I can always have players remove cards from the deck if I find that the two and three player games are lasting longer than they should, or I can increase the amount of cards infront of the player to speed up the game, that might actually be the best option. Regardless playtesting is in order :D
Maybe...
Instead of 30 each player, you could lessen it to 25 per player and make it 100 cards in total. That's a bit of a sweet spot. But it may cost LESS to make the game, and it may be AS PLAYABLE as before.
BTW IDK TBH! (Acronym city — LOL)
Really, I don't know if you can make this work, maybe "shorten" the game play time by a little... I know 5 cards is not much ... but this could have a negative effect on gameplay (depending on the game).
So I would TRY to get it to 25 card per player (up to 4 player = 100 cards).
Let us know if this is possible! Cheers.
questccg wrote:Instead of 30
Right now, the game is balanced to play at 30-45 cards a player. The amount of cards in the game and how many players there are is directly related to how long the game takes as when the players can't play anymore, the game is over. In a four player game, on average 5-8 cards are played every turn and the board refreshes from the deck after every turn. ATM with 4 players, 40 cards are on the table to start, and if we take the higher of the average (I've seen hands as large as 15 before), one player wouldn't get a second turn, (100-40) / 8 = 7.5 turns. If I lower the amount of cards on the table and in the hand it should reduce the average by 1 or two but that very well may take away some of the gratification of the game's scoring mechanic.
Balancing this game is super straightforward, there are only a handful of places you can add to and or take away from.
Analysis-Paralysis (AP)
Balancing this game is super straightforward, there are only a handful of places you can add to and or take away from.
Doesn't having 15 cards in your hand lead to "Analysis-Paralysis" (AP)??? How does a player know which cards to play?? Generally speaking this happens to most games when they go over 8 cards in hand.
In the event that you've never hear of "AP", it means that a player cannot determine the next course of action because of too many possible moves that could be made on his turn.
I don't know HOW your game plays, but 15 cards is a LOT. If your starting hand is only 4 or 5 cards, hand size should probably not go over DOUBLE (so 8 to 10 cards at maximum).
But it's again your game, and you seem to have an insight on what may or may not work in terms of playing/revising your game.
With four players, the most
With four players, the most players can have in their hand is 5 cards. They also have 5 cards in front of them called their "public play area". Both areas refresh back to 5 cards at the end of every turn and playing with 4 people, that number doesn't increase.
Players take turns using cards from their hand and cards from public play areas to make sequential runs of numbers cards call "point hands". These point hands average 5-8 cards which are no longer playable, after collected. So, on average there are 5-8 cards removed from the game every turn. My math was actually a little off up there, the starting cards need to be used to be removed from the game.
Here are some easy to read ratios of cards/turns per game.
Assuming the higher end of the average at 8 cards per point hand:
100 total cards @ 25 cards per player = ~3.1 turns
90 total cards @ 30 cards per player = ~3.75 turns //current balancing for 3 players
180 cards @ 45 cards per player = ~5.6 turns per player per game //current balancing for 4 players
Also have to factor in if a player has one less turn than another player because of the game ending, it matters less on the higher end as the ratio missing a turn due at end game with 45 cards is ~17.8%, but on the lower end of 25 cards it's 32%!
All this is rough math as some cards will inevitably be left over in hands or in the public play areas after all players are out of moves after the deck is exhausted. So those are numbers are slightly inflated, meaning the lost turn ratios trend a little higher as well.
Again it's your game... but
8 cards for a meld seems like a HIGH amount. Rummy does it with a minimum of three (3) cards and you can "add-on" afterwards. These eight (8) "point hands" sound like "melds" (or sequence of cards)...
I get your figures, what you are saying is with 100 cards @ 25 cards per player, you basically play about 3 turns, maybe 4. Seems like a rather SHORT game to me.
IF you have 5 cards in hand and 5 in public, how does the AVERAGE become 8???
My guess it would be closer to "6" or less if you take 3 from your hand and 1 to 3 in public. Really I don't know how to play your game. I'm just explaining to you based on figures and whatever you tell me.
Can you make it that a "point hand" only has 3 cards? Two (2) from your HAND and one (1) from the PUBLIC??? This would significantly extend the gameplay and could make it work with lower card counts.
100 total cards @ 25 cards per player (3 point hand) = 8.33 turns. Now in terms with your calculations this seems OKAY. But assuming that the card go into your PLAY AREA and that you can do like in Rummy and ADD cards to melds alone (like 3 fours, you could add a 4th four OR a sequence 7-8-9, you could add a 6 or a 10)...
IDK I'm just speculating with you.
questccg wrote: Doesn't
Doesn't having 15 cards in your hand lead to "Analysis-Paralysis" (AP)??? How does a player know which cards to play?? Generally speaking this happens to most games when they go over 8 cards in hand.
In the event that you've never hear of "AP", it means that a player cannot determine the next course of action because of too many possible moves that could be made on his turn.
I don't know HOW your game plays, but 15 cards is a LOT. If your starting hand is only 4 or 5 cards, hand size should probably not go over DOUBLE (so 8 to 10 cards at maximum).
But it's again your game, and you seem to have an insight on what may or may not work in terms of playing/revising your game.
So very, very many good card games involve hands of far more than 8 and don't induce AP.
It all depends on how the game is played, but a hand size of 15 doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. It doesn't even ring alarm bells for my wife who is as casual a games player as ever there was.
Tim Edwards wrote:It all
Yeah, many fundamental card games start with 13.. bridge, spades, hearts, etc. Hands in Uno can get a lot larger than 15. The "AP" issue is really only if there are a lot of potential paths to consider for the cards in play, but many games (including, I believe, this one) have a restricted subset that are actually usable at a given moment.
Tim Edwards wrote:So very,
So very, very many good card games involve hands of far more than 8 and don't induce AP.
It all depends on how the game is played, but a hand size of 15 doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. It doesn't even ring alarm bells for my wife who is as casual a games player as ever there was.
The large point hand size in this game isn't overwhelming to new players at all. I've tested on some very green board game players. It's a super casual counting game (players describe it as if uno and skip bo had a child), there are some defensive strats but you can play kinda whimsically and still have fun and win a game. I think I have it at ages 7+ right now but I need to do some playtests with kids. The rules just need a little bit of tweaking and I think this may be a viable product to sell to the education market.