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

["Clark D. Rodeffer" <clark@...>]

> 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.

I may be a bit biased, but I think the current variant 2 (all coins
effectively worth one) trying for low score (default scoring system)
would make the best default game. Scores are closer, which does leave
some chance for ties. But I don't think that hurts the game because
it's silly to intentionally play for a tying low score in Stations
when it should be just as straightforward to play for a win. This is
also by far the easiest variant to score and, more importantly, keep
track the current scores during play. This makes a big difference as
to how players move tiles around. It's also the most intuitive,
easiest to learn set of rules. I'm kind of in a different camp as one
who thinks that variants should "add something" to a game, but that's
just my opinion.

Going for high score with all coins still effectively worth one would
be a nice first variant, because it changes the play drastically
without changing the scoring calculation. You want to really spread
out in the high score variant instead of getting in close, and the
tiles scatter to the edge like the grease floating on top of the dish
water when a drop of soap falls in. Remember those old commercials?
But I digress. The high score variant probably isn't quite as deep a
game as the low scoring one because the center becomes much more open,
making the decisions somewhat easier. But this variant can be
presented as an "easy" or "kid's" variant or for "fast play".
Intuitively, kids especially might like playing for higher scores more
than lower ones -- the "more is always better" thinking.

Next, I would add the extra bit where you get to subtract for like
suits, whether playing for high or low. This adds a little "zing" to
the game because your opponent may have to spend several turns moving
the same tile to overcome a strong play. And like I mentioned before,
this can add lots of drama by allowing a come-from-behind victory.
This rule has the potential to delay the "tipping point" for the game,
but it doesn't necessarily happen every time.

Multiplying distances by hidden coin values drawn from a random queue
(I think it was Matt who suggested the coin draw) would be a good next
step up, no matter whether the game is for high or low. It adds one
more layer of decisions and complexity in scoring, but the best part
of adding the multiples is that it means players have to always keep
second guessing their opponent's plays. With hidden coin values, this
bluffing and second guessing becomes a big part of the game, and it
makes blocking your opponent's paths (or opening them and lengthening
your own if playing for high) both more risky and more vicious. Not
everyone will want to play that way, and some people will honestly
hate the memory aspect that random hidden coins introduces. But
overall, hidden coin values will probably make the game more appealing
to fans of Euro-style games.

Finally, allowing players to choose hidden coin values instead of
drawing them from a queue (the current default rules) adds one more
level of decision-making, and could be pitched as the "advanced" or
maybe the "full" version of the game. It's like going from standard
Torres to the advanced version of Torres -- more difficult, more
decisions, but well worth taking that step.

Again, I've only played a few times, and that only against myself, not
a real opponent. I also haven't played the other variant that Matt
suggested, allowing tile rotations instead of sliding. Intuitively,
rotating the tiles could be much more powerful than sliding, possibly
too powerful because it might give a big relative gain for one player
and lead to a significant last player advantage. But that's just
intuitive thinking. As I said, I haven't tried it that way. I also
haven't yet tried Phillip's multi-player idea, but I think that would
be well worth exploring before submitting the final ruleset. Being
able to list a game as for 2 to 4 players is a big plus.

Clark