Author Topic: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL  (Read 17828 times)

guest509

  • Guest
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2012, 02:26:27 PM »
  It should be noted that this game has gone too far for it to be considered for this year's 7DRL. It would fell like cheating a bit. No biggie. I'll just do something different for the competition this year. :-)

  It has become increasingly 'cardlike' while designing anyway. The initial idea was to do the card game and then make a computer game of it for the 7DRL competition. I'll still release an interface for you to play with your computer. A simple click and drag affair. But certain design decisions that make for a good card game make for a crappy computer game.

  Some examples include a reduction of 'fiddliness' (stat tracking, math, hp, etc...) that computer games thrive on. Also certain decisions meant to facilitate multiplayer interaction loom large in the game and do not translate well to computer.

  Live and learn.

Psiweapon

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Im in ur rougeliekz, pixelling ur tielz!
    • View Profile
    • I Lovemaking Tiles
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2012, 04:16:16 PM »

[SNIP]

Computer roguelikes are great. They can give you the feeling of outsmarting the Dungeon Master (we call him the RNG in this circle). But even the mightiest ascension does not lead to your friend bitching at you 20 years later because you back stabbed him in a game of Risk in high school? <--- True Story. His name is Jeff Aichele and he still guns for me over all others in our weekly FPS frag fest.

Oh hahahahahahahahahahah X_DDD Man that's so good. Well, not good at all actually, but fun.
The invisible hand is a lie, the fiendish dogma of the market cultists. Lest the apostasy grows strong, their blood god will devour each and everyone, pious and infidel alike.

guest509

  • Guest
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2012, 06:24:39 PM »
  Oh yes dude. It is without a doubt my favorite gaming moment.

  Step 1: Convince friend an alliance would go well for both of us. Move troops off his border.
  Step 2: Friend moves his troops off your border and starts fighting another player.
  Step 3: Cash in reinforcement cards. Attack weak border. Take his capitol.

  We were playing with capitols. Take their capitol and they are knocked out of the game. You now control their troops. I let him remain in control of his forces as my vassal (i.e. bitch).

  So great. To this day I like to say, "Well why don't we just make a mutually beneficial alliance."

EDIT: You guys probably don't follow boardgaming trends, but recently with the rise of Euro style board games there is a de-emphasis on player interaction. My philosophy is that you should always be playing the other players. Though I do like to include solo rules to my games.

 -Jo

scaught

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2012, 07:59:39 PM »
EDIT: You guys probably don't follow boardgaming trends, but recently with the rise of Euro style board games there is a de-emphasis on player interaction. My philosophy is that you should always be playing the other players. Though I do like to include solo rules to my games.
I think that's a mis-characterization.  The de-emphasis has been on premature player elimination.  I have a fairly substantial board game collection (250+ now...) and still buy 10-20 new games a year.  I especially have a soft spot for the games of Uwe Rosenburg and Vlaada Chvatil, and the Alea big- and medium-box games.  Even in games like 7 Wonders and the deck building games (Dominion, Thunderstone, Quarriors, etc), where you're effectively playing multi-player solitaire, there's enough griefing that goes on to qualify as interaction -- and in fact, the social interaction trumps the mechanical interaction ten fold.

But that's just tangental.  Continued success on your card game! :)

guest509

  • Guest
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2012, 08:41:14 PM »
  Hmm... that's interesting. I had heard otherwise. I have not gotten too much into many of the newer games to be honest. Sticking most with the older titles like Shogun, Axis and Allies, etc... thanks for the heads up.

Z

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Z's Roguelike Stuff
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2012, 09:05:57 PM »
Regarding joy of programming/playing: I play games for fun and challenge, but programming good games is also fun and challenging. And nothing beats designing a game, programming it, playing it, and discovering that I have created something great. I have won my Hydra Slayer several times with different races, and I think this was very fun. Interestingly, I have also tried to determine what set of weapon is the best for fighting very big hydras in Hydra Slayer. This was done with a program, and, to my surprise, the best sets found were very different that I have thought, apparently very sophisticated (they included 17-divisors, complemented by smaller divisors and meteorite blades in extremely smart ways, so even if one of the divisors caused doubling, you could later use a combination of other weapons which could fix it; and I thought that small divisors are generally better that larger ones). I am happy that there is so much emergent complexity. Now, I could set new Hydra Slayer challenges for myself, but there are so more other challenges to do: other roguelikes to beat, new roguelikes to write. So I mostly concentrate on writing Vapors of Insanity and NotEye, and on playing other good roguelikes from time to time.

Re rolls vs stats. Stats, and calculations behind them, this is an important design decision. There are lots of games which show you with lots of numerical stats (accuracy, dodging as a response to accuracy, damage, armor reduction and protection as a response to damage, armor penetration and critical hit chance as a response to armor protection, luck as a response to critical hit chance, all this split into 7 types of damage, whatever). Too many to think about, and there is no reason to have that in a board game, and even in a computer game usefulness of all that is dubious if the hidden or difficult mathematical rules make it hard to tell what weapon is the best against the given enemy. I have made some sophisticated rules in VoI and I am happy with them (experience system based on Elo's ranking, hit/dodge chances based on Cauchy distrubution instead of dice rolling which is overused in computer RPGs for no good reason, and "weapon class" as a third important feature in addition to damage and accuracy). But I am even more happy with clear but complex mechanics of Hydra Slayer. In a computer game, the developer has a choice of either creating a system based on real life intutions or beautiful mathematical principles, or something simple: as shown by some games by Jeff Lait and Darren Grey, and also Desktop Dungeons and Mage's Guild, you can get a very good game by making the battle system easy to understand, which goes as far as removing not only stats, but also dodge chance, and even HP. In case of a board/card game, you cannot get realism, since it is impossible to perform the necessary calculations, so aim for simplicity.

Hit points: As I pointed out above, you can avoid hit points and obtain a good game. The idea to lose cards instead of losing hit points sounds very nice, an original approach instead of the overused system.
 
Map: having a map certainly makes it more roguelike. But to have a game that can be played without a big table is as worthy goal as to have a roguelike. Maybe a small map, similar to those found in these pocket magnetic chess sets? Could be nice, but also would make it impossible to produce... (although these pocket magnetic chess sets are cheap, so maybe you could use them, have black pieces for dungeon generation and white pieces for monsters and players, or something like that, I like new games like Arimaa which reuse the pieces of old games in novel ways instead of requiring new sets).

Alliances in board/card games: I think that, if you have a game with more than two players, all of whom wants to obtain the highest score in the end, and where you directly fight other players, then this tends to make the actual rules of the game irrelevant, as everything is reduced to forming alliances and backstabbing, like in the classic board game Diplomacy. If you like such things, then I guess it is OK, but I suppose it gets boring after some times. The card game Dominion has cards which allow you attacking other players, but (IIRC) whenever you attack, you attack all the other players at once. This prevents it from becoming a new version of Diplomacy. BTW I think that Dominion is a very good game, and it has a certain very roguelike element: at the beginning of a game, card types which will be available are chosen randomly and shown, which corresponds to random equipment generation (just like in roguelikes you need to adapt your strategy to the equipment you find, in Dominion you adapt your strategy to the cards available, every game is different).

Low direct interaction in most recent Euro style board games is one solution, but indeed, I think it is a rather boring one (I think Dominion qualifies and I like it very much, because every game is different, but I find most other such games not very interesting). This can be solved by having only two players, only two teams, like in Bridge (2 vs 2), Mafia (informed minority vs uninformed majority), or a cooperative game.

Legend

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 656
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2012, 08:11:31 AM »
Haven't gone through the whole thread, but I saw mention of dice rolling.

Be wary of how much rolling is involved. Dice-fests can turn off lots of players. Especially for solitaire play.

Try looking up Island of D 2 and Dungeons of D on boardgamegeek.com to see how things like random values can be incorporated into the main game cards themselves. They do a very nice job of having a deep and intricate game by only using cards and the same cards to do several mechanics of the game.

This helps keep set up quick and simple as well as keeping the game play smooth and flowing.

As far as stat tracking goes, I would shoot for some sort of stat card/sheet that the player could use some sort of token or counter to keep track of as opposed to paper/pencil. Things like discarding your cards in your hand instead of hit points is also a nice idea. It is what David used in Island/Dungeons of D and it worked very well. Gives the game a nice, somewhat,  abstract feeling.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 08:14:45 AM by Legend »

guest509

  • Guest
Re: Cardlike - Doing another version for this year's 7DRL
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2012, 07:52:15 PM »
  Yeah Legend I've checked those games out. They are cool. I recommend them for all people to check out. Take a break from the computer for a bit.

 As far as tracking status, like health and what not, that is not appropriate for a card game. Computer games and desktop RPGs maybe. But it goes against my tabletop game philosophy of low fiddliness. Even with a token I think it's just not fun...so I'll be going with discards to track 'health.' The most I want to have is a deck of cards, perhaps 2 decks if I split up monsters and treasure (unlikely) and 1 die. The advanced game will require a pawn to track where the player is on the map (the basic game will be mapless so as to be played on an area the size of an airline tray table).

The design is pretty settled now. Or at least the engine is. Doing gameplay testing now and will soon be getting the layout of the cards nailed down.

I hope to post some card prototypes here in the next few days for critique.