zao
Member
Posts: 12 
|
Post by zao on Jan 2, 2009 21:44:47 GMT
Hi, I'm actually working on a Tyrian boardgame. Right now it's only in the state of an "ugly hand-made prototype", but if it's really fun to play i'll think about doing all the cards and stuff on the computer and make a nice printable version.
Here is an overview of the game, and sorry for my crappy english.
Each player is a pilot (terraform, like Trent, or any other starship pilot, it doesn't matter) who heard about the existence of the Gravitium and its powerful characteristics. It goes without saying that anyone controlling the Gravitium exploitation on Tyrian will be immensely powerful and will dominate the galaxy.
GOAL:
There are three ways to acquire the Gravitium exploitation ( winning the game):
- Take control of Tyrian by destroying its planetary defenses (in other words, winning an extremely hard battle)
- Become the leader of the corporation owning Tyrian (this is accomplished by completing a lot of "Missions" for this corporation)
- Have a crapload of cash and buy the gravitium exploitation.
THE BOARD:
The "board" consists of different planets/locations (Savara, Tyrian, Gryphon Station, etc.) containing different areas.
For example, on Savara you can find a SHOP, where you can buy different items (ship, weapons, generators, etc.), a FORGE, which allows you to upgrade your weapons, and a REPAIR area, where you can repair your armor after a battle.
Other areas in the game are the MINING ZONES, where you can get resources you can use to build your own items at the FORGE. There are also LABS, which are basically the same thing as SHOPS, except they offer much more powerful items (ie. Zica flamethrowah!)
THE CORPORATIONS:
There are four big corporations in this game: Microsol, Gencore, the Cult of Zinglon, and the Pirates. Each planet is dominated by one of them. By accomplishing missions for them, players will receive money, items, and can become friendly to these corporations.
Being allied to a corporation gives some advantages. For example, you can't buy anything in the Deliani LAB unless you're friendly with Gencore. However, if you're allied with Gencore, chances are that Microsol will hate you, and you will encounter much more harder battles on planets owned by Microsol.
***
That's a really quick overwiew of the game, there's a lot more details.
The problem is I don't think that there will be a lot of interaction between players. They can attack each other or trade items if they meet on the same planets, but with 10 or more locations, it is unlikely that they will meet often, especially in a two player game.
|
|
bb1
Member
Posts: 256
|
Post by bb1 on Jan 3, 2009 2:41:16 GMT
Sounds difficult!
|
|
zao
Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zao on Jan 3, 2009 16:50:49 GMT
Basically, you just move from a planet to another, fight some random enemies, then buy/sell stuff.
The most difficult part are the battles, since EVERYTHING you possess has an effect.
Your armor points depends of your ship, your damage depends of your weapons, your shield points depends of (guess what) your shield, and the sidekicks items have weird effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdz8 on Jan 9, 2009 10:38:55 GMT
Happy new year everyone!
I am not sure I get the core mechanisms. Could you elaborate?
Where are supposed to be the complexity/choice axis?
As my sis tried and to some degree suceeded in doing a simple but catalyzing boardgame (and one of my friends has been a boardgame tester) I know there must be alot more!
|
|
|
|
Post by atlasdark on Jan 9, 2009 10:53:50 GMT
It seems to be a pseudo-RPG in some sense (for the least, wandering and collecting the best itemset). Would the board be played out with cards defining weapons, pilots, ships, et cetera (alike XenoCard), or is it a literal tabletop where you move pieces representing characters/ships across a Monopoly-type board?
|
|
zao
Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zao on Jan 10, 2009 18:22:41 GMT
Yes, it's like a RPG game.  Not a litteral tabletop. But not only cards ( but there's A LOT of them) The board is formed by separate locations (planets, space station), totally independent from each other, each one printed on a separate carboard piece. To move from a location to another, players place their ship into the hyperspace road. Every turn your ship may move forward in the hyperspace of a number of squares depending of its speed. If you end your move on a square marked "4", for example, you can exit the hyperspace and move your ship to a location having a Distance value equal to 4. When beginning a game, you draw a number of locations depending on the number of players. I am not sure I get the core mechanisms. Could you elaborate?
Where are supposed to be the complexity/choice axis? One game round: 1. Movement Each player whose ship is in the Hyperspace Road may continue to move in it, of a number of squares lower or equal to his ship's speed. If a player doesn't move further, he can exit Hyperspace and place his ship on a location having a Distance value equal to the number indicated on the square he was in the Hyperspace. 2. Battle If you're not in the hyperspace, you must draw Enemy cards until the total value of the cards exceeds or equals the Hostility of the location where you are. Each Enemy card depicts an opposing ship you will have to defeat. If two players are in the same location, they can fight each other, or team up to fight the enemies. 3. Shopping, upgrading, etc. Surviving players may now buy/sell stuff, upgrade their weapons, get resources, create items or repair their ship, depending on what's available on the planet where they landed. If two players are in the same location, they can trade stuff. 4. Leave or stay The players may decide to leave the planet, and to enter the hyperspace. Otherwise, they can just stay where they are. Parallel to this, there are the "Missions", that requires you to go to specific locations, fight specific enemies, obtain specific items, and that grant you rewards. |
|
|
|
Post by mdz8 on Jan 11, 2009 14:20:35 GMT
If I have understood the game will loop more or less as follows: - From hyperspace, choose an exit for which Hostility < FirePower (supposing this is the condition to win the match - this is not a detail we can simply forget to mention for clarity) OR move to next turn. I am not well aware of this "hyperspace position" concept.
- If fighting, Collect the resulting money (perhaps hostility*N credits?)
If this is a special location collect the prize, possibly win the game
- Head to shops to upgrade, making new locations 'winnable'. If no upgrades are available, repeat till reaching the required. Again, movement rules are king here, and I'm not quite sure of their workings.
I am still not quite sure the game would be ok. Players should theorically start at the same power level, thereby implying the optimal choice is always trivial (the one maximizing the resulting money). The level of complexity then arises from the question: can I reach the optimal level? For each turn, some players will generally be unable to reach the optimal, most rewarding stage. I am not 100% sure of the movement rules but if this is how it's supposed to work then there could be some issues with players not being able to reach the 'optimal level' as they will progressively accumulate handicaps relative to the best player. What makes this bad is that it is trivial to understand when a choice is non-optimal (nobody likes second choices). A game wich comes to mind is Munchkin if you played it. That game suffered from a "rocket-start-or-not-at-all" issue which could be the case here. Basically, all players obtaining the benefits in the first few turns were likely to end the game. Players unable to get benefits in the first few turns instead generally starve till the end. What makes Munchkin bad gameplay wise, is that it's trivial to understand when you're not acting in the best way (basically, if you're not fighting whenever possible you're likely accumulating handicaps), and nobody likes second choices. Munchkin sounds sort of similar as it works on simple, deterministic, FirePower comparisons. This is not the case for example for a card game called Citadels: in that case, the benefit of fast building can, in some cases win over the benefit of "strong" building. This makes the game more interesting as the best choice (to build or to accumulate gold) is non-trivial. The choice axis allows even more complex considerations. In Monopoly, there's no trivially apparent best choice either, as one may choose to buy - say almost the whole bottom row (440$) as opposed to buy Boardwalk alone. Reading again, I figure out maybe I am not successful in making my point clear. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? In short, I am not sure the choice axis for each turn is complex enough while being rewarding (or at least perceived as such). |
|
|
|
Post by atlasdark on Jan 11, 2009 14:22:32 GMT
That or we could turn this into another TCG.
|
|
zao
Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zao on Jan 11, 2009 18:11:12 GMT
 (I did this quickly. The game won't look like this.) There's the Hyperspace road. When, at the end of a game turn, you decide to leave the planet, you move your ship on the blank square. At the beginning of the next turn, you can move forward. The USP Talon has a Speed of 1, so it can move 1 square. If you want to go to Tyrian, you will have to wait 5 turns, until reaching square #5. If you have a Gencore Maelstrom, you can move up to 3 squares in a turn, so it will take only 2 turns to reach Tyrian. **** Actually, the hostility system is slightly more complex. As I said before, each enemy has a point value. Stronger enemies have high values, obviously, and they give more credits. The credits aren't directly related to hostility, but higher hostility usually means stronger enemies, so, more credits. When you have to fight, the maximum enemy value is equal to: [Planet Hostility]*[Player Reputation] The result is doubled if the player is at war with the corporation ruling the planet. Or it's divided by two if the player is allied with this corporation. A player's reputation increases when completing Missions. A player who complete lots of missions will probably have more credits and better items, but he will encounter tougher enemies. It means some planets can be harmless to a player, while other will have to risk their life each time they dare to approach it. **** I think I understand what you mean, maxdz8. Well, I don't even know how the game will turn out while playing. I think it's possible to win with different strategies - Rely on rewards obtained during battles ; accomplishing missions ; selling stuff (crafting its own items usually cost less than buying them, so you can make profit out of them), or playing aggressively by attacking other players' ships. Still, there's a lot of luck in this game. Random items in shop, random encounters, random missions, random results in battles... Or, it could become a TCG. Heh. |
|
|
|
Post by mdz8 on Jan 11, 2009 18:58:00 GMT
(I did this quickly. The game won't look like this.) No problem with proto artwork. I am used to it.  At the beginning of the next turn, you can move forward. The USP Talon has a Speed of 1, so it can move 1 square. If you want to go to Tyrian, you will have to wait 5 turns, until reaching square #5. If you have a Gencore Maelstrom, you can move up to 3 squares in a turn, so it will take only 2 turns to reach Tyrian. I believe I now start to see some interesting complexity opportunities. I Suppose if I start from Tyrian DIST=5 and move 5 units into hyperspace the result is that I go DIST=10. Actually, the hostility system is slightly more complex. As I said before, each enemy has a point value. Stronger enemies have high values, obviously, and they give more credits. The credits aren't directly related to hostility, but higher hostility usually means stronger enemies, so, more credits. Maybe planet hostility could be the number of enemies to fight and there could be a enemy deck to draw from? Each card could then be completely randomish (within reason). When you have to fight, the maximum enemy value is equal to: [Planet Hostility]*[Player Reputation] The result is doubled if the player is at war with the corporation ruling the planet. Or it's divided by two if the player is allied with this corporation. Or maybe player reputation could be a filter for enemy cards? For example hostility 3 could mean: keep drawing enemy cards till you have 3 cards with attack>= reputation and all ships are allowed in the planet (implying that sum attack > Planet Hostility*Player Reputation, which seems a nice, easy metric). Yes, I now start to think the core mechanism works. Well, I don't even know how the game will turn out while playing. I think it's possible to win with different strategies - Rely on rewards obtained during battles ; accomplishing missions ; selling stuff That's for sure. [glow=red,2,300]As soon as you finalize a proto ruleset and deck please post them! It could turn out something nice.[/glow](crafting its own items usually cost less than buying them, so you can make profit out of them) Take care with this, I suggest to leave the crafting as an optional ruleset. I say this since I also had a crafting mechanism, togheter with an extra dimension of complexity in the game I have tried to design; in the end both were scrapped for the sake of simplicity. or playing aggressively by attacking other players' ships. Have you considered a coop ruleset instead? I personally think aggressive competition isn't at its best on boardgames although I admit this is just personal taste. Still, there's a lot of luck in this game. Random items in shop, random encounters, random missions, random results in battles... The question is: how much random you want it to be? You could just say that weapons are pooled as objects and all shops are the same (install unlocked weapons by reputation?). Will there be dices? Special abilities a-la Doom: TBG? For example, in the aforementioned Citadels randomness is partially reduced by allowing players to draw from a deck 2 or even 3 times and discarding 1 or two cards (this gives the impression to the players fate isn't screwing them). You can adjust the level of randomness pretty easily in the design stage. I personally think a good design should work non-trivially even without randomness. While we're at it, can you say something about your avatar? |
|
zao
Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zao on Jan 12, 2009 0:00:38 GMT
I believe I now start to see some interesting complexity opportunities. I Suppose if I start from Tyrian DIST=5 and move 5 units into hyperspace the result is that I go DIST=10. Yes, that's one possibility. I also thought that instead continuing from 5, whenever you enter Hyperspace (from any location) you start back from 0. The planets would have no relative position, it would always take the same time to go to Tyrian, no matter where you started from. Distant planets would just take more time to reach, and they would contain more interesting stuff. (I know it doesn't make much sense, logically) Maybe planet hostility could be the number of enemies to fight and there could be a enemy deck to draw from? Each card could then be completely randomish (within reason). Or maybe player reputation could be a filter for enemy cards? For example hostility 3 could mean: keep drawing enemy cards till you have 3 cards with attack>= reputation and all ships are allowed in the planet (implying that sum attack > Planet Hostility*Player Reputation, which seems a nice, easy metric). There's already an enemy deck. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that one. The reputation filter is a good idea! The Missions were already filtered that way. For example, you need 6 Reputation points to start the final Gencore mission, which allows you to rule Gencore, therefore winning the game if Gencore owns Tyrian. If you draw this mission on your first turn, you just discard it and draw another one since your Reputation=1. Drawing a number of enemy cards=Planet Hostility is a nice idea too. Combined with the Rep filter, Probably less complicated than drawing cards until their value equals [Host*Rep]. Take care with this, I suggest to leave the crafting as an optional ruleset. I say this since I also had a crafting mechanism, togheter with an extra dimension of complexity in the game I have tried to design; in the end both were scrapped for the sake of simplicity. The crafting is excessively simple. It works exactly as the shop. Let me explain how the shops/lab/forge work: On Savara, there's a SHOP symbol, with the number 3. This means that the shop has always 3 available items. These 3 items are cards drawn in the item deck, during the game setup. Whenver someone buys an item (he pays its credit value) at the shop, it is replaced with another card drawn from the item deck. The FORGE (crafting) works exactly like the shop, but you can't buy the available items by paying their cost in credits. You must pay its cost with resources. Each item card displays the resources needed to craft them. Take for example the Sidekick "Atom Bombs". To buy it in a SHOP, you would have to pay 4 credits. In a FORGE, you would spend 2 Iron. The LABS are also the same thing as a SHOP, but the items available are not drawn from the item deck. They are drawn from a separate "lab" deck, containing the most powerful items. Have you considered a coop ruleset instead? I personally think aggressive competition isn't at its best on boardgames although I admit this is just personal taste. Yep. I also thought about removing the whole corporation system, so it could be everyone VS Microsol. Will there be dices? Special abilities a-la Doom: TBGYes, during the battles. Weapons have two main caracteristics: Firepower (number of dices) and Targets (number of enemies hit by the attack). I think that a fully upgraded Zica Laser would throw 18 dices, but it's so expensive that I don't think it will ever happen. Sidekicks can be considered somehow as special abilities. Most of them give small bonuses, like "+1 firepower" or "hit all enemies". While we're at it, can you say something about your avatar? That's a long story... Just kidding. I found it with Google. It's something like the second picture when you search for "Microsol". It comes from this website: www.gtseletronica.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by atlasdark on Jan 12, 2009 0:35:04 GMT
Microsol seems to be multibranded.
THEY'RE TAKING OVER CORPORATE WEB SITES, ALL IS LOST
|
|
|
|
Post by mdz8 on Jan 12, 2009 9:13:29 GMT
Drawing a number of enemy cards=Planet Hostility is a nice idea too. Combined with the Rep filter, Probably less complicated than drawing cards until their value equals [Host*Rep]. Currently this is almost the same (the sum is replaced by a sequence of comparisons). The benefit is that battles will feature less cards (which is positive instead of having a flood of HOST=1 cards). The downside is that generating bottles will likely take longer due to enemy cards being discarded (can be offset by multiple enemy decks). Thinking at it again it's probably better to also have an upper hostility bound per-enemy (no more than 2x? 3x? Adjusted by corporation?). The crafting is excessively simple. It works exactly as the shop. ... Take for example the Sidekick "Atom Bombs". To buy it in a SHOP, you would have to pay 4 credits. In a FORGE, you would spend 2 Iron. Then I have the impression it could be redundant. Keep in mind that you'll have to test and balance every option you add to the core gameplay! You've been warned. Add N resources and suddendly you have added N axis of complexity to test: you'll have to make sure the 'reward' deck is statistically balanced and you have to basically do twice the work in balancing item prices. Although adding more resources adds complexity, think twice before doing them as they will be often perceived as limitations as opposed to opportunities. Weapons have two main caracteristics: Firepower (number of dices) and Targets (number of enemies hit by the attack). I think that a fully upgraded Zica Laser would throw 18 dices, but it's so expensive that I don't think it will ever happen. Yes, but how does this relate to combat? Previusly I had the impression combat was hostility-level based: I see combat rules are then not going to be as simple. For example in the aforementioned Munchkin, combat is essentially reduced to the sum of combat modifiers (which was my original understanding). In Risk, each combat turn uses limited possibilities but the rules are effectively reduced to a well defined chance ratio. Consider again that complex rules will need to be tested. Testing complexity grows FAST... It may be useful to specify what kind of gamers are you targeting. For example Doom: TBG happened to hit a terrible spot; it is too complex for casual players and not deep enough for 'pro' players. Make sure you don't fall in the same trouble. Citadels by contrast is targeted mostly at casual gamers and in my experience have been very successful. |
|
zao
Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zao on Jan 14, 2009 16:51:37 GMT
Well, I like to test my games, and solving balance issues. ^^
This Tyrian Boardgame might indeed fall deeply in the problem you're talking about... Players' decisions seem simple, but there are too complicated rules for battles.
Doom wasn't good? I didn't want to buy it, so I read the rules online, and made myself a Doom boardgame loosely based on the real one. It's kinda fun, especially when the marines get screwed up by Archviles.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdz8 on Jan 15, 2009 13:33:41 GMT
It depends how much "loosely based" it was.
In general yes, it was good to you and yes, it was very good to me, but now say half of my friends start groaninig as soon as I show'em the box. They are "casual" boardgame players and the game is just too complex to them (and I think shrinking everything by a good 20% in dimensions would have been much better).
Anyway, I also would like to take a shot at it as soon as you reach an Alpha release.
|
|
