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

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clark D. Rodeffer 
  To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:16 PM
  Subject: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow


  >Whew! I took the printout of Stations to lunch with me what -- a week
  >ago now? And I'm only now getting a breather to post my comments.

  >In short, I have to agree with others that corner spaces should count
  >when measuring distance. Even though I didn't see it explicitly stated
  >as such, I assume that since you're not allowed to completely block
  >off a station from the rest of the grid, diagonal moves (such as
  >between two tiles that touch only at a corner) are not allowed,


  That's correct.


  >so
  >that path can't be used when calculating shortest distances. In your
  >rules, maybe an easy way to say this would be to measure the distance
  >in terms of square quarter tile spaces between the shops, with only
  >orthogonal turns allowed. This seems simplest to me, and since
  >everyone would be operating under the same rules, it would be fair for
  >everyone, even if the scores are somewhat offset by counting the
  >corners. The diagrams should be easy enough to update.

  Yes, I plan to completely re-do the example figure. And corner spaces WILL be counted.


  >Stations might be most easily played on top of one of those Chessex
  >grids to make counting easier. With the VASSAL module, using the
  >snap-to grid works great. This seems simplest to me, and since
  >everyone would be operating under the same rules, it would be fair for
  everyone.

  >I like the variants numbered 1, 2 and 3a, but am less fond of variants
  >3b and 4. In variant 1, playing for the highest score instead of the
  >lowest greatly changes the game, both in how stations are claimed and
  >in how tiles get shoved around. Very nice! In variant 2, not only does
  >this make the game more abstract (which is a bonus for some of the
  >players I play with), it generally makes the game much closer, and as
  >a result, players have to take more care when pushing tiles around. It
  >makes the tile pushing much more of a strategic part of the game than
  >when the coin values are hidden. Variant 3a, gives a nice bonus for
  >matching suit, which can sometimes really help a player who is behind
  >catch up. Variant 3b doesn't really add anything new to the game, just
  >shifts the scores downward. Variant 4 seems much too open to me, and
  >seems to reduce the importance of good position. I also like the
  >suggested variant where coins are drawn from a stack and played (I'll
  >call it variant 5). This introduces a nice but small random element
  >into the game. So far, I've only messed around with playing turns via
  >the VASSAL module, but after doing that, I have a hunch that my
  >favorite ways to play (provided I can find players) will be the
  >standard game or variant 1, possibly combined with 2, 3a and/or 5.

  These comments I find very fascinating. Although the regular game was play-tested reasonably well, the variants were all an afterthought of mine with no more than five minutes given to coming up with them and with no play-testing whatsoever. This is one of the reasons the game was placed in the Rules In Progress folder rather than being directly submitted to the rules list at piecepack.org. All of Clark's comments make a lot of sense to me, and after reading his impressions it seems rather obvious that variant 3b doesn't add to the depth of the game and that variant 4 is too radical in the sense that it destroys much of the strategic play by introducing too much potential change per turn. I did realize that variant 1 would make game-play very different but my intuition convinced me that it would likely make for an equally engaging game with no new problems introduced. I was also quite sure about variant 2. I agree that variant 5 sounds promising.

  Here's a question for all of you participating in the workshop; what should the standard game be? I believe that whatever variation (or no variations from the rules as written) makes for the best game should ultimately be the standard game in the final rules version. Then other interesting versions should be listed as variations. Clark's comments have caused me to reconsider what the best version might be. My feelings right now are that I can see variant 2 or 3, or both together, as alternatives to the present standard version. Somehow I can't see version 1 being the standard version, although I should really try it first. It's probably a bias relating back to the theme in Alien City, the game that inspired me to come up with this game. Although I like variant 5, I  think this is better as a variant than as the primary game. My inclination now is to not include 3b or 4 as variants in future rules versions. But I would appreciate hearing other opinions concerning what version should be standard and what should be included as variants. 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.



  >Nice game! I may include standard plus variant 2 (only) as part of my
  >abstracts tournament next month!

  That would be great, but please don't feel compelled. If you do though, I would greatly appreciate hearing what the various impressions were!


  >Clark


  Thanks very much Clark for the insightful feedback.

  -Mike







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    a..  Visit your group "piecepack" on the web.
      
    b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     piecepack-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------