headers
Mike Schoessow | 1 Oct 2005 03:43
Picon

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

Thanks Phillip for choosing Stations as the second game to critique! I must apologize for not responding
sooner but I didn't read my mail Tuesday and the mail has been down for the past day and a half. I look forward
to some feedback, on the game play as well as the rule write-up. Thanks.

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Benedict 
  To: piecepack@... 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:21 AM
  Subject: [piecepack] piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow

  Michael has a couple of games in the in progress folder, so I 
  picked Stations, a 2-player game.

  I need to read the rules again and get my trusty 'pack out before 
  commenting - so expect something from me in the next few 
  days.

  Phillip

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/grQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Schoessow | 1 Oct 2005 04:07
Picon

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Benedict 
  To: piecepack@... 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:39 AM
  Subject: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow

  >OK, I read the rules through carefully, and played through a 
  >sample game (I used my split personality to play both sides).

  >1) General comments

  >Clever, themed, 2-player abstract, with emphasis on the abstract 
  >rather than the theme.  Definitely some influence from Alien City 
  >(Michael's contest winning game), but simpler and faster, and no 
  >need for extra pieces.

  You're very generous to call it themed :-)

  >2) Specific comments

  >I did find some aspects of the definitions section a bit confusing 
  >when it comes to Spaces. It was not intuitive for me that there are 
  >only 8 spaces around a tile (rather than 12) - ie some 1/2 x 1/2 
  >squares would be skipped when 'turning a corner' on the Path.  
  >What made this a bit more difficult for me to remember during 
  >play and scoring was the fact that when the connection is in a 
  >straight line those squares 'do' count.  (see the difference when 
  >counting spaces in the diagrams  between the 5 spaces and the 
  >6 spaces).  Another point about the diagrams - I am not 100%
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Schoessow | 1 Oct 2005 04:15
Picon

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Matt Worden 
  To: piecepack@... 
  Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:33 AM
  Subject: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow

  >I had a chance to play the game during my lunch break today.  
  >Overall, it's a neat game that fits the piecepack very nicely.  It 
  >seems like a game that not only will reveal more/deeper strategy and 
  >effective tactics the more you play, but will change a good deal 
  >depending on who you play with.

  >However, I'm a bit unclear yet as to how paths are defined.  This 
  >seems to be what the whole game revolves around ... so being able 
  >to "dummy proof" the definitions into something as clear as possible 
  >will help.  I've formed a couple of questions that might help 
  >illustrate where/how I'm confused:

  >1> What is the distance travelled between two building sites that 
  >are "directly across the street" from each other (the initial half-
  >tile gap is between them)?  My gut would tell me it's 1, since you 
  >have to "cross the street" ... but, as Phillip mentioned in his 
  >reply, middle example in the "Examples of Counting ..." diagram 
  >seems to suggest that it might be zero instead.

  Hi Matt,

  Thanks for trying out the game and providing feedback. Regarding the counting of spaces, see my response to
Phillip's post. I realize that it is confusing (OK, nonsensical) the way it is now. Let me mull this over
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Porter235 | 1 Oct 2005 23:37
X-Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: New file uploaded to piecepack

On September 30, 2005 03:44 pm, Porter235 wrote:
> On September 30, 2005 03:29 pm, Benedict wrote:
> > Porter235, that looks great!  A pity my Mac OS 9.1 isn't up to
> > running it, but either Clark will help me out or I'll upgrade to OSX
> > in a few months.
> >
> > Fantatsic resource that you have provided there.
> >
> > Phillip
This just in on the vassal list...

In consideration of pre-Tiger Mac users, I've changed the Web Start version
of VASSAL 2.1 to run using JRE 1.4, same as VASSAL 2.0.5

In other words, assuming that you have JRE 1.4 installed, you can try running 
the regular version of vassal again...

<http://vassalengine.org/ws/vassal.jnlp>

Hope this addresses your problems on the Mac.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/grQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Benedict | 4 Oct 2005 18:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: New file uploaded to piecepack

--- In piecepack@..., Porter235 <porter235 <at> y...> 
Hi, 

Thanks for that link, but my machne still isn't interested in 
opening the file.  X.x coming to me in January, so I'll just be 
patient.

Phillip

> In consideration of pre-Tiger Mac users, I've changed the Web 
Start version
> of VASSAL 2.1 to run using JRE 1.4, same as VASSAL 2.0.5
> 
> In other words, assuming that you have JRE 1.4 installed, you 
can try running 
> the regular version of vassal again...
> 
> <http://vassalengine.org/ws/vassal.jnlp>
> 
> Hope this addresses your problems on the Mac.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/grQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clark D. Rodeffer | 6 Oct 2005 23:16

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, 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.

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Mike Schoessow | 7 Oct 2005 06:14
Picon

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clark D. Rodeffer 
  To: piecepack@... 
  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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
mschoessow | 7 Oct 2005 06:39
Picon

Comments regarding my game Stations

I have come to some conclusions (at least for now :) as to how 
spaces are counted in Stations. I feel that it makes sense to do it 
the same way as in Alien City. In that game it worked fine, and 
nobody seemed confused. The easiest way to think of this is to 
imagine all the tiles setting on a grid where the line spacing is 
equal to one half tile width. When moving from one station to 
another, use the following system: Starting from the station on one 
tile, the number of spaces that must be moved through to get to the 
other station is equal to the distance between the stations. 

So for example,

Two stations that are directly "across the street" from each other, 
assuming the two tiles are 1/2 tile width apart, are a distance 1 
apart. 

The distance from one corner of a tile to the opposite corner of 
that same tile (assuming the path is clear around the tile perimeter 
on one side) is 5.

I hope this makes sense. 

I will be updating the figure in the rules at the end of the 
workshop and also adding another figure illustrating the full 
scoring of both players at the end of a representative game, as 
suggested by Phillip.

Phillip also suggested that the game might be workable as a 4-player 
if the board was made bigger. If anybody tries that configuration I 
would appreciate very much hearing the results.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Clark D. Rodeffer | 7 Oct 2005 16:29

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

> 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".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Mike Schoessow | 14 Oct 2005 08:40
Picon

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

Thanks Clark for the additional comments. I'm not sure that my preference is necessarily for the simplest
version being the standard game, although that becomes attractive if the simplest version is also one of
the better versions.  

I've been very pleased with the quality of the comments and suggestions received and I want to thank
everyone who contributed. As a designer it feels great to get outside feedback on one of my designs! These
workshops are a great way to inject some new insight into emerging game designs and also to identify flaws
(like illogical schemes for counting spaces :-). As a result of the feedbak I've received I plan to, 1)
Change the rules regarding the determination of distance between two stations as per my earlier posting,
2) re-do the counting example figure accordingly, 3) add a comprehensive end-of-game scoring example
with accompanying figure, and 4) re-evaluate which version should be the standard game and which
versions should be variants. 

Here are my present inclinations on the last point, after thinking about it for 4-5 days. Although I agree
that the old variant 2 pure abstract version is the simplest, I'm worried that it will limit the appeal for
players who are not into pure abstracts if it is made the standard version, so the standard game will likely
retain the scoring system that is based on coin number as well as distance. I will make the suit matching
bonus part of the standard game because it adds to the game's dynamics in a good way and without any apparent
downside. I also like the idea of picking coins from a face-down stack (what was being called variant 5 in
the earlier posts). Thanks for the idea Matt! This seems to me a very Euro-game way of introducing some
chance into the game, i.e., you are presented with a random draw, adding modest chaos, but then
immediately given a chance to adjust your play accord
 ingly. Also, the opponent never knows what the number is on the coin you just placed so there is not a memory
element involved for the other player. Of course the player placing the coin will want to remember, but
there are only six coins and only three are paricularly important typically so this shouldn't be a big
problem, even for gamers with crappy memories (like me). As for variants, I agree, after reading Clark's
observations, that 3b and 4 are not worth keeping. The tile rotating idea was another intriguing
possibility but it has the disadvantage of being physically somewhat fiddly. The first listed variant
will likely be the one in which only distance is considered with each coin having a base value of 1.  Variant 2
could then be the one where players try to maximize their scores instead of minimizing them, and this could
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane