K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with. Probably helps that I studied engineering at Uni as well.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

Okay am going to separate fun into two types; Transitory and Long-term.

Transitory fun:

• The Shape shifting process itself
• The transition between elements
• The introduction of new forms
• The introduction of new arenas
• The initial novelty of the game itself

I cannot perceive a prospective player other than anticipation or novelty values having a constant source of fun through these aspects of the game itself. I have placed the idea of new forms into both lists but unless that particular design point was added would not assume it to be more that transitory. One aspect that could make long-term fun out of the above elements is the player themselves finding a particular desire to play with certain shapes and/or arenas but this is more an individual trait rather than a pervasive aspect.

Long-term fun:

• The actual combat and its interaction with the elements,
• Planning the list of shapes you will take into combat,
• Multiplayer combat (if implemented - future design point)
• Ranking systems (if implemented - future design point)
• Shape creation model maker (if implemented - future design point)

In truth it truly comes down to the fact that I see the "fun" of the game arising purely from the actual gameplay of combat. The constant striving to outdo the opponent, whilst trying to survive their attacks. A game of chasing after each other whilst also running from each other. Executing a pure transition into a different element flatfooting the opponent or attacking across elements thus effectively catching them unawares. I want the elation to be from the ability to defeat my foe from having done a particularly clever set of transitions or feel the crushing disappointment of being defeated mercilessly by the opponent outplaying me forcing me to go back to the drawing board and rethink a stratagem or tactic.

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.


On a completely personal note: I hope your health recovers soon or at least it should when I can find where I put that doll to take the pin out.

K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with. Probably helps that I studied engineering at Uni as well.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

Okay am going to separate fun into two types; Transitory and Long-term.

Transitory fun:

• The Shape shifting process itself
• The transition between elements
• The introduction of new forms
• The introduction of new arenas
• The initial novelty of the game itself

I cannot perceive a prospective player other than anticipation or novelty values having a constant source of fun through these aspects of the game itself. I have placed the idea of new forms into both lists but unless that particular design point was added would not assume it to be more that transitory. One aspect that could make long-term fun out of the above elements is the player themselves finding a particular desire to play with certain shapes and/or arenas but this is more an individual trait rather than a pervasive aspectt.

Long-term fun:

• The actual combat and its interaction with the elements,
• Planning the list of shapes you will take into combat,
• Multiplayer combat (if implemented - future design point)
• Ranking systems (if implemented - future design point)
• Shape creation model maker (if implemented - future design point)

In truth it truly comes down to the fact that I see the "fun" of the game arising purely from the actual gameplay of combat. The constant striving to outdo the opponent, whilst trying to survive their attacks. A game of chasing after each other whilst also running from each other. Executing a pure transition into a different element flatfooting the opponent or attacking across elements thus effectively catching them unawares. I want the elation to be from the ability to defeat my foe from having done a particularly clever set of transitions or feel the crushing disappointment of being defeated mercilessly by the opponent outplaying me forcing me to go back to the drawing board and rethink a stratagem or tactic.

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.


On a completely personal note: I hope your health recovers soon or at least it should when I can find where I put that doll to take the pin out.

K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with. Probably helps that I studied engineering at Uni as well.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

Okay am going to separate fun into two types; Transitory and Long-term.

Transitory fun:

• The Shape shifting process itself
• The transition between elements
• The introduction of new forms
• The introduction of new arenas
• The initial novelty of the game itself

I cannot perceive a prospective player other than anticipation or novelty values having a constant source of fun through these aspects of the game itself. I have placed the idea of new forms into both lists but unless that particular design point was added would not assume it to be more that transitory otherwise.

Long-term fun:

• The actual combat and its interaction with the elements,
• Planning the list of shapes you will take into combat,
• Multiplayer combat (if implemented - future design point)
• Ranking systems (if implemented - future design point)
• Shape creation model maker (if implemented - future design point)

In truth it truly comes down to the fact that I see the "fun" of the game arising purely from the actual gameplay of combat. The constant striving to outdo the opponent, whilst trying to survive their attacks. A game of chasing after each other whilst also running from each other. Executing a pure transition into a different element flatfooting the opponent or attacking across elements thus effectively catching them unawares. I want the elation to be from the ability to defeat my foe from having done a particularly clever set of transitions or feel the crushing disappointment of being defeated mercilessly by the opponent outplaying me forcing me to go back to the drawing board and rethink a stratagem or tactic.

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.


On a completely personal note: I hope your health recovers soon or at least it should when I can find where I put that doll to take the pin out.

K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with. Probably helps that I studied engineering at Uni as well.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

_____________________
Reserving this Section here for the moment till I have time to properly answer your question. Gah who has fun these days...
______________________

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.


On a completely personal note: I hope your health recovers soon or at least it should when I can find where I put that doll to take the pin out.

K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

_____________________
Reserving this Section here for the moment till I have time to properly answer your question. Gah who has fun these days...
______________________

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.


On a completely personal note: I hope your health recovers soon or at least it should when I can find where I put that doll to take the pin out.

K.I.S.S. has been hammered into my head for a very very long time. I have a habit in my creative writing to interweave multiple story arcs under one overarching arc. So the need for purity of purpose and simplicity of design has been an ethos I very much live with.

_

Why is that fun. In a way you have already offered an explanation but i would like you to drill deeper into that. (in theory you could do all the same things on a level surface and it would still have the same mechanics what does having those different levels really offer. )

What I really want is to clearly identify what is fun and start to build a pillar based on that ( is it the changing of levels in the arena, the combat between you and your opponent etc, find what is the fun part of it and clearly define that once that is done. Then we will start to compare our choices against that to move forward.)

_____________________
Reserving this Section here for the moment till I have time to properly answer your question. Gah who has fun these days...
______________________

why you made that chose for your design

You are so done by the spelling police btw -- I am going to assume you meant "choice".

Probably the major reason I made the choice to use this particular design amongst the many stalking through my head is practicality. A post inside a forum proposes an idea "Design by Committee". I do not know the poster nor do I know the other respondents in this post, but I like the ideal proposed. So I indicate my interest along with 2 others (at this stage...big hint there to the fence sitters by the way ). Lo and behold I suddenly am faced with the reality of having to provide a game idea with descriptive grey cubes as my noun of choice.

My decision came down to the following reasons:

• I am not fully aware of the skill sets within the committee.
• I am unsure as to the long-term commitment of those currently involved.
• I needed to utilise an idea that at its very heart can be defined by easily perceived constraints and simple elements, and;
• I wanted it to have a reasonable chance of being completed successfully.

This particular game idea does not stand out in me as being more important than other ideas I have developed nor any less important. Its strength lays in its inherently simplistic design with a great deal of potential that struck me as being appropriately applicable for the "Design by Committee" experiment.