thread: 2006-03-14 : Board Setup in Mechaton
On 2006-03-14, Vincent wrote:
Frank, I'd be psyched to re-excite Larry and catch some of the sweet GameLUG action. But man, way to lead with an insult.
Sydney, finding and the fixed balancing factor:
Here's a dynamic I really enjoy when I play games, you'll spot it in most or all of the games I design. It goes like this:
1. You make a partial decision based on little information;
2. We make more information available;
3. You do your best to make the best of your early commitment, based on the new information.
So the rules above work like this:
1. I partially commit to my units' placement (the perimeter);
2. You fully commit to your units' placement, based on my partial commitment;
3. I commit the rest of the way, within the constraints of my uninformed initial commitment.
So even though it's not random, my hope is that it'll have enough uncertainty in it to make it ... uh ... iffy, all around.
If that doesn't work out in action, randomizing's my fallback depth.
This makes FSF go "Didn't mean to insult"
I just noticed the game played out on a featureless board. Your updates make the board not featureless.
This makes FSF go "Probably should add"
Hmm, may have dug that hole deeper on that last comment...
Designing interesting LEGO games seems to be hard. That you've got something that looks interesting is way more than I've accomplished.
This makes VB go "no harm done."
Normally I'm more chill, you caught me at a cranky moment. Don't sweat it.
This makes NinJ go "I've never played on a featureless board..."
... because the rules didn't call for it. There were rules for cover (though now they're better) so we used it extensively, particularly since, in my first game, played with some other folks, we each only had one mecha.
I can confirm that it was fun before (even if it didn't satisfy all my requirements) and that it's now a good game.
