Re: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow

["Mike Schoessow" <mikeschoessow@...>]

Thanks Clark for the additional comments. I'm not sure that my preference is necessarily for the simplest version being the standard game, although that becomes attractive if the simplest version is also one of the better versions.  

I've been very pleased with the quality of the comments and suggestions received and I want to thank everyone who contributed. As a designer it feels great to get outside feedback on one of my designs! These workshops are a great way to inject some new insight into emerging game designs and also to identify flaws (like illogical schemes for counting spaces :-). As a result of the feedbak I've received I plan to, 1) Change the rules regarding the determination of distance between two stations as per my earlier posting, 2) re-do the counting example figure accordingly, 3) add a comprehensive end-of-game scoring example with accompanying figure, and 4) re-evaluate which version should be the standard game and which versions should be variants. 

Here are my present inclinations on the last point, after thinking about it for 4-5 days. Although I agree that the old variant 2 pure abstract version is the simplest, I'm worried that it will limit the appeal for players who are not into pure abstracts if it is made the standard version, so the standard game will likely retain the scoring system that is based on coin number as well as distance. I will make the suit matching bonus part of the standard game because it adds to the game's dynamics in a good way and without any apparent downside. I also like the idea of picking coins from a face-down stack (what was being called variant 5 in the earlier posts). Thanks for the idea Matt! This seems to me a very Euro-game way of introducing some chance into the game, i.e., you are presented with a random draw, adding modest chaos, but then immediately given a chance to adjust your play accordingly. Also, the opponent never knows what the number is on the coin you just placed so there is not a memory element involved for the other player. Of course the player placing the coin will want to remember, but there are only six coins and only three are paricularly important typically so this shouldn't be a big problem, even for gamers with crappy memories (like me). As for variants, I agree, after reading Clark's observations, that 3b and 4 are not worth keeping. The tile rotating idea was another intriguing possibility but it has the disadvantage of being physically somewhat fiddly. The first listed variant will likely be the one in which only distance is considered with each coin having a base value of 1.  Variant 2 could then be the one where players try to maximize their scores instead of minimizing them, and this could be applied to either the standard game or variant 1. I will probably throw out my original idea of players knowing and keeping all their coin numbers secret and placing them in whatever order they wish. I don't think it's good to list too many variants in a finished game and I also don't think that this would make a better game than the one with players picking coins blindly from a stack. 

I'm still thinking about Phillip's suggestion for a multi-player version utilizing a larger board. Multi-player abstracts tend to lose much of their strategic interest and become highly tactical because so much can happen before a player's turn comes around again that strategic play is largely precluded. Having said that there are some multi-player abstracts that I enjoy so I will explore and play-test this more before deciding. 

So, let's move the workshop on to the next game! Not that I won't appreciate more comments from anyone about Stations, especially if you post a session report!

-Mike


  ----- Original 
  > Clark, I hope you won't mind me putting
  > you on the spot a bit; do you like variant
  > 1 or 2 better than the basic game? Truly,
  > I don't endorse any particular stand right
  > now; I just want to determine what the
  > basic game should optimally be defined as.

  I may be a bit biased, but I think the current variant 2 (all coins
  effectively worth one) trying for low score (default scoring system)
  would make the best default game. Scores are closer, which does leave
  some chance for ties. But I don't think that hurts the game because
  it's silly to intentionally play for a tying low score in Stations
  when it should be just as straightforward to play for a win. This is
  also by far the easiest variant to score and, more importantly, keep
  track the current scores during play. This makes a big difference as
  to how players move tiles around. It's also the most intuitive,
  easiest to learn set of rules. I'm kind of in a different camp as one
  who thinks that variants should "add something" to a game, but that's
  just my opinion.

  Going for high score with all coins still effectively worth one would
  be a nice first variant, because it changes the play drastically
  without changing the scoring calculation. You want to really spread
  out in the high score variant instead of getting in close, and the
  tiles scatter to the edge like the grease floating on top of the dish
  water when a drop of soap falls in. Remember those old commercials?
  But I digress. The high score variant probably isn't quite as deep a
  game as the low scoring one because the center becomes much more open,
  making the decisions somewhat easier. But this variant can be
  presented as an "easy" or "kid's" variant or for "fast play".
  Intuitively, kids especially might like playing for higher scores more
  than lower ones -- the "more is always better" thinking.

  Next, I would add the extra bit where you get to subtract for like
  suits, whether playing for high or low. This adds a little "zing" to
  the game because your opponent may have to spend several turns moving
  the same tile to overcome a strong play. And like I mentioned before,
  this can add lots of drama by allowing a come-from-behind victory.
  This rule has the potential to delay the "tipping point" for the game,
  but it doesn't necessarily happen every time.

  Multiplying distances by hidden coin values drawn from a random queue
  (I think it was Matt who suggested the coin draw) would be a good next
  step up, no matter whether the game is for high or low. It adds one
  more layer of decisions and complexity in scoring, but the best part
  of adding the multiples is that it means players have to always keep
  second guessing their opponent's plays. With hidden coin values, this
  bluffing and second guessing becomes a big part of the game, and it
  makes blocking your opponent's paths (or opening them and lengthening
  your own if playing for high) both more risky and more vicious. Not
  everyone will want to play that way, and some people will honestly
  hate the memory aspect that random hidden coins introduces. But
  overall, hidden coin values will probably make the game more appealing
  to fans of Euro-style games.

  Finally, allowing players to choose hidden coin values instead of
  drawing them from a queue (the current default rules) adds one more
  level of decision-making, and could be pitched as the "advanced" or
  maybe the "full" version of the game. It's like going from standard
  Torres to the advanced version of Torres -- more difficult, more
  decisions, but well worth taking that step.

  Again, I've only played a few times, and that only against myself, not
  a real opponent. I also haven't played the other variant that Matt
  suggested, allowing tile rotations instead of sliding. Intuitively,
  rotating the tiles could be much more powerful than sliding, possibly
  too powerful because it might give a big relative gain for one player
  and lead to a significant last player advantage. But that's just
  intuitive thinking. As I said, I haven't tried it that way. I also
  haven't yet tried Phillip's multi-player idea, but I think that would
  be well worth exploring before submitting the final ruleset. Being
  able to list a game as for 2 to 4 players is a big plus.

  Clark