Skip to Content
 

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

42 replies [Last post]
Tue, 11/02/2004 - 22:24
#31
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

I think I get it now. It solves some problems, but does it add another level of complexity?

Well, strictly speaking it does add a layer of complexity that wasn't there before (either all your workers are in the factory, or some are and some aren't- that's more complex). But I think it cuts out some bigger or more complex stuff and is therefore probably ok.

It's like your workers have Summoning Sickness :)

Top
Wed, 11/03/2004 - 14:19
#32
Trickydicky
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Sorry, I'm kind of late ont the scene and discussion is already so progressed.

I only have a few things to say.

First, the game and your rules were very clean and simple. NIce work. It amazes me, the complete variation in types of games are developed here. I would never have thought of a game like this, or many of the others I've read on teh GDW. I think that is a good sign of a diverse group of designers and players.

I think I agree with the idea that it would be better if you didn't know what the supply for any given toy was when setting the price (Jwarrend adn SiskNy). I think it would create tougher decisions for players to make.

I also wonder if it would work to simply have a max amount of money that the public is willing to pay for any type of toy. You could have this with your current 3 card demand system. Instead of demand the cards would simply have a max amount of money on them. The lowest priced goods would sell first, until the max amount of money has been spent. This would give a player who puts a quite high price on a toy the ability to sell it if no other players have those toys for sale at a lower price. That creates a bigger variation in possible sell prices, I think (I could be wrong). I think it would also simplify what the players have to think about. They don't have to think about how many toys will be sold they and how much they can be sold for. They only have to think about the total amount the public is willing to spend on a given toy type. This is similar to Rookie's suggestion, but slightly different. Maybe it would work maybe it wouldn't. Not having played the game it seems like it would create more interesting situations and possibilities for the players to deal with.

Well, keep up the good work, and the good discussion.

Top
Wed, 11/03/2004 - 19:48
#33
fanaka66
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Trickydicky wrote:
I think I agree with the idea that it would be better if you didn't know what the supply for any given toy was when setting the price (Jwarrend adn SiskNy). I think it would create tougher decisions for players to make.

This seems to be the most popular idea. I definitely plan on changing the turn structure to reduce the need for the privacy screens, but this will be the second idea to playtest. I was initially resistant to the idea, but as I think about it more, I think I may be warming up to it.

Trickydicky wrote:
I also wonder if it would work to simply have a max amount of money that the public is willing to pay for any type of toy. You could have this with your current 3 card demand system. Instead of demand the cards would simply have a max amount of money on them. The lowest priced goods would sell first, until the max amount of money has been spent. This would give a player who puts a quite high price on a toy the ability to sell it if no other players have those toys for sale at a lower price. That creates a bigger variation in possible sell prices, I think (I could be wrong). I think it would also simplify what the players have to think about. They don't have to think about how many toys will be sold they and how much they can be sold for. They only have to think about the total amount the public is willing to spend on a given toy type. This is similar to Rookie's suggestion, but slightly different. Maybe it would work maybe it wouldn't. Not having played the game it seems like it would create more interesting situations and possibilities for the players to deal with.

I'm still not sure about this. I think it works better if the supply is unknown, so this change may depend on if the other one goes well.

Thanks for the input!

-mikep

Top
Thu, 11/04/2004 - 09:51
#34
fanaka66
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Based on the replies here, I've been trying to re-work the turn structure and I am running into some problems.

I think the top priority is combining the set-up of the factory and the price setting. In my original version, it's much too clunky setting up and removing the screen so many times, so I think this is most important. Therefore, all the following have combined the two steps.

Johan first suggested:

Demand
Set-up (workers for this month and prices for last month)
Sell Toys (from the last month)
Pay Workers
Produce Toys

This works well. It maintains my original version the best, but adds a one-month delay between building a toy and selling it. I can live with that, and works thematically.

One of the leading ideas in the GDW has been to set your prices before knowing the demand. jwarrend came up with this:

Set-up (your factory and your prices)
Demand
Pay workers
Produce Toys
Sell Toys

This one eliminates the one-month delay, so you must set your prices before knowing exactly what other people are producing. I want to test this one out, to see how well it works in practice, but I see some problems.

In my original model and Johan's improvement, you would be physically putting your toys in the appropriate sales box, putting as many toys as you wish to sell at the price you want to sell them at.

In this model, though, your would be setting prices for toys you haven't manufactured yet, so how do you mark which price and how many toys you want to sell? I suppose I could add a price marker to the game, where you would set it up in the first phase which would tell which price you would sell them for once they are manufactured. This then brings up the problem SiskNY noticed, that an illegal set-up would give you illegal production and illegal prices. One small mistake could bring the game to a screeching halt while it was all figured out.

So I have tried to combine the two ideas, making sure that demand was revealed after set-up but before you sell, and also putting sell before produce. This is what I came up with:

Set-up (workers for this month and prices for last month)
Demand
Sell Toys (from last month)
Pay Workers
Produce Toys

This brings up a new problem. You will see 2 demand cards between setting up your workers and eventually selling the toys that they produce. With only three demand cards showing at a time, I think everyone will just manufacture the toys that have a demand in the third slot. Once they can diversify, then it just becomes luck-based on who guess the next cards correctly.

One option would be to use 4 cards for demand, but then you could see bigger swings in the demand, which could increase runaway leader problems.

Any ideas?

-mikep

Top
Thu, 11/04/2004 - 09:59
#35
RookieDesign
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

jwarrend wrote:
fanaka66 wrote:
Maybe there is a high enough Demand Card for both games in the market :)

I think it's definitely worth your while to learn how Schoko works, but I wouldn't consider abandoning your project over it. Your games have similar themes, but Fad Factory has simplicity on its side, and that's a huge plus in today's game market. If it gets picked up, it will do just fine.

-Jeff

I agree with jwarred. Don't throw your game out, but you could learn from another game that was publish. Schoko and Co was amusing but was also flawed in some points. The transformation of cocoa to chocolate is a fun topic, but the selling methods wasn't good.

Anyway don't fear for having competition on the market, this game is out of print in a while. I'm just saying that you can learn from it.

Good luck.

Top
Thu, 11/04/2004 - 12:00
#36
Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

mike,

Sorry I have not had a chance to give feedback (still reading rules and just way to busy at work these days), but please dont think you need to throw away your game because of Schoko.

From what I read about Schoko, it is not really "like" your game. Sure they have a factory aspect, players compete for selling/producing of cocoa/chocolate.....

But I think your game offers such an elegant and great mechanic for supply/demand. Your game also (when played) made me feel like I was a real company trying to "keep up with the times". Gameplay made me feel like I was trying to figure out a direction for MY company. I was not locked into "selling cocoa/chocolate". I had to decide what products to sell and when. This is not what I see when I read about Schoko, so I dont think that is an issue at all.

Top
Thu, 11/04/2004 - 16:26
#37
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Would it help (or hurt) to have the three card demand system like you have it, but then have the top card of the deck face up- so you can see what's on the horizon?

I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense thematically, and it may be redundant from what the three card model does...

Another way to put that might be to simply say that only the first 2 of the three cards 'count' for demand and the third is the fad coming up which will, next month, become demand.

Finally, what about a non-linear demand model where instead of the 'oldest' card leaving, the highest demand card leaves. Or no cards leave until the demand reaches a certain amount in that category. Or total. I dunno, something that models the fad craze more in a way that the fad gains popularity to a point and then falls out of favor.

For example, maybe there's a slot for each toy type, and each slot starts with a "0" or myabe a "1" card in it for demand. Then over time the demand for one type of toy or another increases (either randomly by card draw, or maybe by player actions somehow). Once it gets to a certain level then it drops back to 0.

Just thinking of different possibilities here. I think I actually like your original system best, but there is the fact that in a lot of ways it's simply who guesses best what's coming up.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 11/05/2004 - 01:41
#38
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Aha!

Suppose there were a limited amount of each toy that could be produced (total). Like there's only enough materials for X red toys and Y green ones. Then suppose the max number of each toy that can be built is different.

So like say there's only a few Blue toys that can be in people's warehouises at any given time (I guess once you sell them they;d go back to the supply).

Now you have to choose, do you build what's 'in demand' now, so you can sell it and make money? Or do you build the limited supply item so when it comes up you can cash in on it? Couple that with a cost to maintain units in your warehouse (like say you have to rent space in a warehouse, and you pay per unit stored) and perhaps you have som einteresting decisions to make. I haven't thoguht it through all the way, but it certainly sounds like it might be interesting. It sorta reminds me of production in Puerto Rico.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 11/05/2004 - 02:15
#39
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

I got another idea while solo playing just now. When a toy is sold, actually put that cube (or chit or whatever) on the demand card. When a demand card fills up, remove it from the game. If after a month a demand card is not full, put a doller on it... this represents that the group is willing pay an additional dollar per unit they buy.
[EDIT: Don't remove them as soon as they're full. Once demand has been met in a month, a group will continue to buy toys at $1 apiece. At the end of each month you remove all cards where demand has been met, and then for the next moth you reveal 1 new card- I like how you had the 1-card per round so you run out at December). This might necessitate playing with cards higher that 1-5 so they don't all run out each round.]

A question comes up when 2 of the same color demand cards come up. I just had a 4 of Spades with a $ and 2 yellow tokens on it, then the next month I flipped a 3 of Spades. One way is to do them as seperate groups, but which order do you resolve them in? Also, that goes against your original intention... another way that might preserve your intent is to lump the cards toegether, so there are now 7 units worth of demand for Yellow... the question is, what price will they pay? It night reward luck too much of you add the price together as well ($8/unit in my case- 4+3+1). But how else would you do it? [EDIT: This is probably the way to go- attach them together and add their numbers, and that's it.]

- Seth

A side thought I just might be to reverse the way it's done- you don't choose the price, but you choose the number of units to sell, hen the price everyone gets is determined by the supply for sale and the current demand- maybe via a lookup table. I don't know if I like this part much.

Top
Sat, 11/06/2004 - 07:56
#40
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
YET ANOTHER idea...

It's 4am, so forgive me if this doesn't make a lot of sense...

What about having 4 different demand piles, one for each toy. The range could be bigger- maybe 1-8 or something, wih some repeated numbers maybe. Then there would be 1 card from each pile face up. The demand for each toy would go up and down independantly of one another, and there'd always be demand for each.

Thoughts?

- Seth

Top
Sat, 11/06/2004 - 08:25
#41
fanaka66
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2008
Re: YET ANOTHER idea...

sedjtroll wrote:
It's 4am, so forgive me if this doesn't make a lot of sense...

What about having 4 different demand piles, one for each toy. The range could be bigger- maybe 1-8 or something, wih some repeated numbers maybe. Then there would be 1 card from each pile face up. The demand for each toy would go up and down independantly of one another, and there'd always be demand for each.

Thoughts?

- Seth

I really like the way that the demand fluctuates in the current model. I think it's good that the demand can spike in one month and then 3 months later no one wants the toy. I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, I just think it may model something other than fads better.

-mikep

Top
Sun, 11/07/2004 - 17:39
#42
fanaka66
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2008
Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

As my week in the GDW winds down, I would just like to thank everyone for their time in looking my game over.

Your ideas and enthusiasm have been overwhelming and very helpful. I'll let you know how further playtesting goes.

Thanks!!!

-mikep

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut