Skip to Content

Self Elimination Game - Good Idea or Not?

9 replies [Last post]
slivnica
Offline
Joined: 09/15/2017

Hi there,

I have an idea about a game and was looking for feedback on it, or if something similar has been done before.

Players: 2
Board: 9x9 checkered board
Pieces: 31 pieces each (different colours of course)
Game duration: 30-45mins (not confirmed yet)
Objective: To reduce your own pieces down to 1

Phases of Play:
1: Players decide who goes first, future games other player goes first.
2: Players each take a turn by placing their pieces on the board one at a time
3: The players move their pieces around the board attempting to create a 3 in a row
4: The player who creates a 3 in a row removes those pieces from the board and can’t be used anymore in the current game.

Winning: The player who is left with 1 of their pieces on the board wins.

Thoughts???

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Some Thoughts

It seems a decent place to start for the game, sure. A couple initial thoughts.

- Try starting with a smaller board. A smaller board encourages players to cross paths with one another more frequently, as well as not sprawl out and take a leisurely approach to eliminating their own pieces.

- Might pieces stack upon one another? If they did, what sort of in-game situations/benefits/penalties would this present?

- There's potential to have 4- or 5-in-a-row as well with these kinds of games. In typical "match three" video games such as Bejeweled the player receives a benefit for arranging this. Additionally, this would potentially allow players to eliminate all their pieces from the board and their supply (as well as prevent them from doing so, should they not be paying attention). How would this change your game if you considered implementing it?

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
What if I end up with 2

What if I end up with 2 pieces due to matching more than 3 at a time?

The game has a weird quirk that you can't block your opponent effectively once you start winning, due to lack of pieces. I have a sense that strategy would start to disappear as the game progressed.

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
let-off studios wrote: - Try

let-off studios wrote:

- Try starting with a smaller board. A smaller board encourages players to cross paths with one another more frequently, as well as not sprawl out and take a leisurely approach to eliminating their own pieces.

And you'd need a lot fewer pieces, because 31+31 = 62 (unless you could stack or something)

Also, what would prevent me from just putting all my pieces down in groups of 3 to start with? This is very easy to prototype.. have you actually tried playing a game of it?

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Placing bits

I think the game as described could easily get bogged down into a tic-tac-toe kind of tie with everyone blocking each other's moves. Mechanisms to prevent that might present themselves while noodling around with a prototype.

For example, maybe you can only place within a certain radius of your existing pieces. The player who goes first might be content to play separately, but the second player has an incentive to reach across the board and cause some problems.

Stacking might be a good way to liberate blocked/trapped pieces. Maybe every piece beyond the third that's eliminated at once can be stacked onto existing pieces. A stack-of-two can be removed with any adjacent friendly piece because they add up to three. A completely surrounded piece can even get rescued by making a stack of three. The ultimate move would then be to arrange a diamond of four stacks-of-two, then place one piece in the middle to eliminate 9 simultaneously... those six could be stacked elsewhere leading to a chain reaction that could conceivably remove every piece in play. (Note, if your opponent doesn't put their own piece in that center spot, you're obviously playing a 4-year-old).

slivnica
Offline
Joined: 09/15/2017
Thanks for the feedback and

Thanks for the feedback and other considerations it’s really appreciated. Once I get to the finer details and some play testing I’m hoping to jump back on board and update.

slivnica
Offline
Joined: 09/15/2017
After some play testing I

After some play testing I found it does have a lot of issues that need to be worked out, so will start working on those and hopefully be able to create a fun yet challenging game.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
OK Play

Just learned about a game called OK Play. You may want to learn more about it:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/208808/ok-play

- Four-player, five-in-a-row, tile-laying game
- No board, no size limit on how much table space it occupies
- Limited number of tiles, which can be replaced when the player runs out of tiles in their supply

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Make the board matter

As OK Play illustrates, the board is not essential to this kind of game... unless you make it essential.

One idea is to do something similar to Scrabble... litter the board with buffs or obstacles.

I think a better idea would be to have two versions of the game. The basic version would be as you described (with any fixes we don't know about yet), and the advanced version where pieces can "wrap-around" connect with the opposite side of the board.

Even if you don't want to do that, completely artificial barriers like a board edge can make for deeper strategy. Note how much less useful a chess knight is on the left or right edge, or how the basketball rule of "once you stop dribbling you can't start again" forces a lot of passing and therefore opportunities for the defense to intercept.

Plunk
Plunk's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/07/2017
Had a thought: Could give

Had a thought: Could give each player a secret win condition rather than always getting down to one tile. So maybe yours is have three tiles by themselves remaining, or two sets of two remaining, etc. Would solve for ending up with two tiles on the board and no more tiles left to play.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut