3 Sep 2006 16:01
4 Sep 2006 03:00
Re: Pyramid Specs
The closest I could find was the ppp7.pdf file in the files section of the yahoo group. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/files/Piecepack%20accessories/ Components The piecepack pyramids consists of 24 four-sided pyramids of all one color in the four suits with six different sizes. The pyramids should not be transparent. A large suit marking is printed on one side of the pyramid so it can be used as a directional marking and a smaller suit marking with a vertical line under it is printed on the oppisite side of the pyramid to designate the back of the pyramid.The sides of the pyramid have a letter A,B,C,D,E or F depending on the size of the pyramid starting with A as the smallest size and ending with F as the largest. The pyramids were made so that when a smaller pyramid is placed on top of a larger pyramid the only information that can be seen from the larger pyramid is the rear directional marking when viewed from the rear and the front suit marking when viewed from the front. Notes for Manufacturers The piecepack pyramids are public domain; anyone may manufacture and distribute (for profit) piecepack pyramids without pay of royalty or license. If you need the specifactions of the pryamids please write. It is important that piecepack pyramids conform to the basics outlined in the Anatomy section above. The largest pyramid should not exceed 1/2 tile width, so that it may fit on a tile quarter-section.(Continue reading)
4 Sep 2006 08:13
ANNOUNCING THE 7th PIECEPACK GAME DESIGN COMPETITION: Good Portsmanship
Whew, made my own deadline. Folks, I know this is long, but I wanted to cover everything. There's a section for what you absolutely need to know, and one for stuff you probably just want to know. There's also an HTML version at <http://www.ludism.org/piecepack/pp7.html> if you'd prefer to read that. Game on! Ron ************************************************************* ANNOUNCING THE 7th PIECEPACK GAME DESIGN COMPETITION ===================================================== **Contest theme**: _Good Portsmanship._ In the spirit of free and open source software and culture, every entry must be a translation, or "port", of an existing game to the piecepack. While this may seem like a mechanical exercise at first glance. there is plenty of room for the game designer's talents. Read on... **Judge**: Ron Hale-Evans, the Port Authority (<rwhe@...>) **Mediator**: Meredith Hale, The Eradicator! (<piecepack7@...>)(Continue reading)
4 Sep 2006 15:45
Re: ANNOUNCING THE 7th PIECEPACK GAME DESIGN COMPETITION: Good Portsmanship
Nice! :) I'm thinking about a couple of games that would be nice as piecepack ports... Incidentally, I recently made a list at BoardGameGeek about this subject. It has all the existing piecepack games I was able to identify as being "ports" from existing commercial games (some were identified as such by the authors, but some were not), also games heavily influenced by existing games and also some obvious suggestions for other games that would be very easy to play with a piecepack set. The games in this last group are so easy to play with a piecepack set that I don't think they would make good candidates for this contest... Here's the link: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=15415 Well, I like the theme of the contest. I think it leaves a lot of room to the authors to translate an existing game into a good piecepack game, which is not so easy... -Jorge On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > Whew, made my own deadline. > > Folks, I know this is long, but I wanted to cover everything. There's > a section for what you absolutely need to know, and one for stuff you > probably just want to know.(Continue reading)
4 Sep 2006 22:38
Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
On Monday 04 September 2006 02:13, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > ### Anonymity ### > > As I've become familiar with the work of the designers in the > piecepack community, I've learned to tell some people's games a > light-year away because of their graphic design, clip art, writing > style, and so on. Because of this phenomenon, true anonymity has been > hard to achieve. I'd like to try some new procedures in this contest > that I hope will help alleviate these problems. > > 4. **Ports Illustrated**: Illustrations are optional, but if you use > them, they _must_ be _photos of standard piecepack equipment_, such > as the Mesomorph editions or the printable versions of the same > available from [Piecepack.org][3]. In the contest version of your > game, you may not use line art or one of the several sets of > piecepack clip art available. You _may_ replace the photos with > clip art in the final version. > > 6. Make sure your photos look good in black and white, since they will > probably be printed that way. > OK. I understand the spirit with which these rules were created but I am personally very hurt by their inclusion in the ruleset. I am someone who has spent an unbelievable number of hours designing a complete set of piecepack graphics for 8 suits in a style that is specifically designed for black and white printing! I have made all of those files available to the community. I have made a font available to the community to make it easy to include said style in their game designs. (Not(Continue reading)
4 Sep 2006 23:11
Re: Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
Whoa! Hold on, Jonathan! It's going to take me a while to address all of your issues, but the short answer is I consider a JCD Piecepack to be standard equipment. I deliberately left the definition of "standard equipment" to be open-ended: "they must be photos of standard piecepack equipment, SUCH AS the Mesomorph editions or the printable versions of the same available from Piecepack.org" (emphasis mine). I now regret not making the validity of JCD Piecepacks more explicit; I just figured people could email The Eradicator if they had questions about whether a given piece of equipment was considered "standard". In fact, I would encourage _more_ people to use JCD Piecepacks if they have them, because (1) they look awesome in black and white (Anonymity Rule 6) and (2) they'll all provide camouflage for each other. I hope that helps in the short run. I'll have the long answer after I take a shower and get something to eat. Best wishes, Ron On 9/4/06, Porter235 <porter235@...> wrote: > On Monday 04 September 2006 02:13, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > > ### Anonymity ### > > > > As I've become familiar with the work of the designers in the > > piecepack community, I've learned to tell some people's games a > > light-year away because of their graphic design, clip art, writing > > style, and so on. Because of this phenomenon, true anonymity has been(Continue reading)
5 Sep 2006 00:31
Re: Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
On Monday 04 September 2006 17:11, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > Whoa! Hold on, Jonathan! It's going to take me a while to address all > of your issues, but the short answer is I consider a JCD Piecepack to > be standard equipment. I deliberately left the definition of "standard > equipment" to be open-ended: "they must be photos of standard > piecepack equipment, SUCH AS the Mesomorph editions or the printable > versions of the same available from Piecepack.org" (emphasis mine). Sorry, thank you for your clarification. My major concern was ... "they must be photos of STANDARD piecepack equipment, such as the MESOMORPH EDITIONS or the printable versions OF THE SAME available from Piecepack.org" (emphasis mine). (I've been havin' a pretty stressfull month or two, and you just got an unwarranted wad of yuck thrown at you when I read the sentence in questions with the emphasis I have marked. Sorry. )
5 Sep 2006 00:44
Re: Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
On 9/4/06, Porter235 <porter235@...> wrote: > On Monday 04 September 2006 17:11, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > > Whoa! Hold on, Jonathan! It's going to take me a while to address all > > of your issues, but the short answer is I consider a JCD Piecepack to > > be standard equipment. I deliberately left the definition of "standard > > equipment" to be open-ended: "they must be photos of standard > > piecepack equipment, SUCH AS the Mesomorph editions or the printable > > versions of the same available from Piecepack.org" (emphasis mine). > > Sorry, thank you for your clarification. My major concern was ... > > "they must be photos of STANDARD piecepack equipment, such as the MESOMORPH > EDITIONS or the printable versions OF THE SAME available from Piecepack.org" > (emphasis mine). > > (I've been havin' a pretty stressfull month or two, and you just got an > unwarranted wad of yuck thrown at you when I read the sentence in questions > with the emphasis I have marked. Sorry. ) Thanks, Jonathan! I appreciate your owning your yuck.(Continue reading)I'm sorry to hear you're having a bad couple of months, and I hope things get better for you. I'm in the middle of writing the "long answer", but now we understand each other, I guess I can make it a little shorter. Ron -- -- Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org/
5 Sep 2006 01:33
Re: Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
OK, this is my second message in this thread. Detailed answers are inline below. > On 9/4/06, Porter235 <porter235@...> wrote: > > On Monday 04 September 2006 02:13, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > > > ### Anonymity ### > > > > > > As I've become familiar with the work of the designers in the > > > piecepack community, I've learned to tell some people's games a > > > light-year away because of their graphic design, clip art, writing > > > style, and so on. Because of this phenomenon, true anonymity has been > > > hard to achieve. I'd like to try some new procedures in this contest > > > that I hope will help alleviate these problems. > > > > > > 4. **Ports Illustrated**: Illustrations are optional, but if you use > > > them, they _must_ be _photos of standard piecepack equipment_, such > > > as the Mesomorph editions or the printable versions of the same > > > available from [Piecepack.org][3]. In the contest version of your > > > game, you may not use line art or one of the several sets of > > > piecepack clip art available. You _may_ replace the photos with > > > clip art in the final version. > > > > > > 6. Make sure your photos look good in black and white, since they will > > > probably be printed that way. > > > > > > > OK. I understand the spirit with which these rules were created but I am > > personally very hurt by their inclusion in the ruleset. Well, I'm glad that you understand the reason for the Anonymity rules, so we have something to start with. I hope my last message and this(Continue reading)
5 Sep 2006 02:58
Re: Anonymity, definition of standard piecepack equipment, and my work is worth nothing!
On Monday 04 September 2006 19:33, Ron Hale-Evans wrote: > The version that most people > will see, _forever_, is the version that goes up on the games page at > Piecepack.org: your final version. The only people who'll see the > plain version are me, Meredith, and possibly the playtesters. Ahh, but I am not judged on the pretty rules, and I argue that pretty rules/components can make a big difference to the final feeling/clarity of a game. But as I mentioned my major concern has been addressed, so I'll leave it be, and be very thankful that you are running the contest. Thank you! > > Also worth note is neither this nor any other contest in the past has > > mentioned that you can not submit a game that you have already released > > to piecepack.org... My game Triactor is a good match for this > > competition, and even if I do reformat the rules to meet your > > requirements you will still know it was mine, because you have seen it > > already! > > I don't really understand your problem here, Jonathan. Could you > please clarify it? Can I submit a game that has already been released and available for download on piecepack.org? It destroys any pretence of anonimity since you already know that I wrote the game, but could I do up a compliant formatted version of Triactor and submit it? Your rules currently do not cover this, nor have any of the contests in the past, although you are striving for anonimity. (I was tempted to submit Triactor for the Mesomorph contest that has finally come to a close as well.) > http://www.piecepack.org/Printable.html(Continue reading)
RSS Feed