Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 16 Jan 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:07 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Trying to design a competitive crafting game

18 October 2016 - 12:23 PM

One immediate idea: I recently played a board game called Splendour in which players compete for various objectives in a somewhat similar fashion. One element of that game was being able to "Reserve" a certain objective, preferably when you had noticed another player specifically aiming for it - in this way you can further your own goals while rendering some of their work useless. This could work for your game: a player can (with the use of a certain card or otherwise limited-use action)  "reserve" a product for his own completion. You could even be extra dickish about it if you make that not count as removing it from play, essentially limiting the other player's available goals to two (or however many) until the reserved product is completed by the reserving player. 

In Topic: Trying to design a competitive crafting game

18 October 2016 - 11:17 AM



As for the CCG part: no. This is a closed game, nothing to collect. One box, several stacks, put the cards on the playing area, done. Imagine Munchkin, Exploding Kittens or NetRunner. Expansions add new events and resources, but a player with more cash and time should not have a better deck.




The current issue I'm encountering is balance: how to allow a player that is losing, to have a chance against someone with better resources and equipment? Maybe with "screw you" cards? An action could be to mess up with the opponent (hire people to oxidise and ruin the opponent's ore).


Ah, my mistake on the CCG thing then. And ah, balance. The scourge of us all. At first thought I agree that you should have ways to mess with the other person's strategy. The question that follows, for me, is what shape it should take - sabotage like you'd mentioned, or "cleaner" economic competition, like blocking them from buying certain resources or limiting their hand/storage amounts. Lots of options, and a lot of the decisions will come down to the kind of theme and mood you want.

In Topic: Trying to design a competitive crafting game

18 October 2016 - 08:00 AM

I love me some crafting, and have recently started playing card games more (hearthstone, and even Magic just last weekend!). 


Is this meant to be a CCG where players have a certain "collection" of cards? If so, I wonder at the speed of gaining new loot cards. You say you can finish a few rounds in a coffee break which makes for a potentially very high turnover, which might make it trivially easy to gather every card in the game. 


Also, an alternative idea which I think might give players more options during the game (but also likely has the tradeoff of making matches longer): Instead of having a single order for both players to craft, have a choice of three (or however many for good balance). Players "win" the completed order once they'e made the item (and perhaps have options to win the order with a non-exact match as you describe in your doc). Completed orders are replaced so there are always three options available to go for. Furthermore, players on certain very good turns could have the ability to win more than one order at once if they use their cards very efficiently.


I suggest this because I think it might allow for more playstyles and big swing turns for people who've fallen behind, which is always a fun thing to see in card games. Also helps prevent a person being entirely screwed by never having the cards to go for the correct single product.


Anyway, the concept sounds interesting! One last note: in your  doc you mention "stroking" the coals, when I'm fairly sure you meant "stoking." I do not imagine there are too many blacksmiths who stroke their coals on purpose. ;)

In Topic: What would you say is required for a good survival horror game?

14 October 2016 - 09:41 AM

While allowing for the point Luckless made about jump scares being startling, not scary, I do think they can have their place even in hardcore horror games if used sparingly. Nothing like that kick of adrenaline when the monster drops on ya out of nowhere. Be careful where you put them (it might not be wise OR effective to puncture a carefully-crafted suspenseful atmosphere with a jump scare, for instance) but don't disregard them.

In Topic: What would you say is required for a good survival horror game?

14 October 2016 - 08:36 AM

An emphasis on resource scarcity and player helplessness in the face of threats. Resident Evil used to be famous for bullet starvation such that the player would hoard ammo almost to a fault - it made for wonderfully panicked moments as you wondered whether or not it was worth it to gun down those zombie dogs or if something worse might be around the next corner. 


I should clarify what I mean by player helplessness, as you've already touched on it: not that the player has no recourse against threats, but that their recourse is often escape rather than combat. Combat makes a player feel powerful, and if you're going for horror you want them to feel vulnerable in general and powerful only in punctuated, fleeting moments.


And finally: mystery. There is no fear like the fear of the unknown. Good sound and lighting design is practically a must-have for any kind of scary game. Human beings rely on our vision to a fault, and things picked up by our other senses (or out of the corner of our eye, or in the shadows, etc) will tend to feel spookier until we can get a clear look at it.