[piecepack] Re: Mod Moons

["Troy Holaday" <tholaday@...>]

I have inserted my responses, to James' responses, in a sort of dialogue form for clarity.

>>jdroscha@... 2/22/02 10:47:39 AM >>>
Me confused.  With an offset square grid, you have six directions
you can go from the center of a tile, just like hexes.  And thee
directions you can go (though, as you point out, they are not
equidistant) from any vertex.  I must be missing something.

But if you're going to work from vertices, it looks like you may
encounter a problem.  Namely, your coins and/or pawns will not
comfortably fit on adjacent vertices.  Yes, no?

>>Me
Well, a sliding hex, based on your tiles, is problematic for a lot of reasons, not the least of which you can't slide the squares in the interior.  So it's a matter of what lines one is able to 'ignore' when playing.  If you are playing 'on the lines' that becomes even harder (or perhaps 'more interesting').  If you slide the tiles 1/2 subunit in your system.  you end up with a weird formation.  (Spaces)  A space now shares a side with five tiles, and is corner connected to two more, in an assymetrical arrangement.  (Lines)  Assuming 'seams' are lines, exactly the same as the lines in the interior of a tile, a pawn playing off the point of a t-junction can move in three directions to another point, and some of these  points are just 1/4 inch away.  (As you pointed out, this is 'uncomfortable for pawns-physically, if another is only 1/4" away.)  A pawn in the center of  atile can move in four directions, 1/2" each to another point.  See the problem?  Further, it's just inelegant.  No one plays on a simulated 'hexboard' of shifted squares if they can help it - do they?

>> jdroscha
I have to say I don't see a difference mechanically.  The
spiral means ace and the suit symbol means ace; they are mechanically
interchangable in the context of piece values.  I.e., what rules can 
be constructed when there is a spiral on the tile that can't be when
there is a suit symbol?  Just curious.

>>Me
In my current design, I have the spirals set to be a type of trap, the null has another function, the numbered coins are decoys.  All are turned face down at the beginning of the game.  Mechanically, maybe there isn't any difference (maybe).  But I am playing thematically off the spiral, off all the icons to be exact.  While you say that an 'ace' =1 and a spiral =1, that is only because you defined it that way.  They don't have to both = 1, and it would be easier for them not to if the suits were never used to indicate '1'.  Why use two different symbols to mean the same thing?  I understand your argument from playing cards, yet it is not really a logical defense because I would then ask "but why did you put a spiral on the coins and the dice?  That isn't a traditional approach."  Oddly enough, in the design I am working on right now, the spiral on the coins has one value (an effect really), the suit generally has another (to mark affiliation, 'side' if you will, and for indicating devices - kind of like the dungeon crawl game that was posted earlier using crowns to indicate treasure), and the ace on the dice is just a '1.'  My 'modified' tiles actually screw up my own design a bit, but I feel that the use of only one icon for '1' is more consistent and would make development easier (provided I knew it ahead of time).

>> jdroscha
This might cause difficulties for some folks.  The original
piecepack design is color-blind friendly except for the pawns.
Distinguishing the dice merely by color only exacerbates this problem.

>>Me
Great point.  I am not a look both ways kind of guy, so I don't always see these problems coming.  I usually deal with them in a revision phase.

>> jdroscha
Sounds like a nice feature.

>>Me
It's essentially a very easy way of making the pawn plus someone posted earlier.  Though I realize it's not quite as full-featured as that poster's idea was.

>> jdroscha
[To my: I added larger points to the center of the square grid tiles.]
 What is the purpose here?

>>Me
If you look at my sample jpg, you will see that the center point creates a macro-grid when tiles are joined.  The truth is, that's what the tiles are themselves as well.  One could easily say that the junction of four tiles is a macro-point of some sort, but it's not as visually true, and with my points, you could create, say, a 3x3 macrogrid, centered on a 9x9 microgrid.  With junctures of four ponts only, you would need a 6x6 microgrid for a 2x2 microgrid.  The points could be defined as positions of power (like refueling stations), they could exert safe zones on surrounding squares, they could allow teleporting, whatever.  I could even see a game where one player moves from intersection of tile to intersection of tile, while the other moves from center point to center point, never touching each other but somehow fighting for the same space.  The more easy distinctions one can make without overtly disrupting those already in place or making the design 'ugly' to look at, the more inspiration one provides for design.

Troy Holaday
Assistant Director of Academic Systems
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
(765) 285-3936
(765) 285-2082 - fax

>>> jdroscha
[To my: I added a 'front' marker (dot) to one side of the pawn.]
Seems problematic.  I would think a directional marker on a pawn 
would only be irritating unless it were on the top of the pawn where
everyone can see it from their angle.

>>Me
It's very subtle and not at all irritating.  Check it out.  The point is that someone specifically indicated earlier that it would be nice to know which way a pawn is 'facing' so that one could 'program' it Roborally style with coins.  If the player can't see a dot from his angle, he knows he is looking at the pawn's 'ass.'


I really hope I am not frustrating everyone.  There are a lot of ideas floating around here that probably ought to be explored one at a time.