On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:32:20 -0500, George Harnish <lefou23@...> wrote: > It would be a challenge to create a repeating hex pattern to fit on a > square. Sketch up your ideas, even if the idea has been discussed and > discarded. Maybe you come up with a solution that hasn't been tried. Beehive has such a design: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/786115/beehive Daniel ------------------------------------
There can be a compromise. Two white squares of a thick black border of half the size of the tile, diagonally placed. Those two squares would represent the dark squares, while the two other opposite square areas formed would represent the white squares. Image attached. Daniel On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:32:20 -0500, George Harnish <lefou23@...> wrote: >> Oh how history repeats itself. "Checkered vs not" has been discussed >> before in this list at least 3 times (see archive) and James Kyle (the >> original designer) explains why he rejected that in his designer notes >> (see wiki). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------
That's also very nice, and "regular" even. And that makes two size options, a "pawn/coin" sized hex and a "tile" sized hex. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Daniel Ajoy <da.ajoy@...> wrote: > ** > > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:32:20 -0500, George Harnish <lefou23@...> > wrote: > > > It would be a challenge to create a repeating hex pattern to fit on a > > square. Sketch up your ideas, even if the idea has been discussed and > > discarded. Maybe you come up with a solution that hasn't been tried. > > Beehive has such a design: > > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/786115/beehive > > Daniel > __,_.,___ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:57:02 -0500, George Harnish <lefou23@...> wrote: > That's also very nice, and "regular" even. And that makes two size options, > a "pawn/coin" sized hex and a "tile" sized hex. Yes, though square coins are generally ugly. Another back of tile design is attached. Daniel > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Daniel Ajoy <da.ajoy@...> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:32:20 -0500, George Harnish <lefou23@...> >> wrote: >> >> > It would be a challenge to create a repeating hex pattern to fit on a >> > square. Sketch up your ideas, even if the idea has been discussed and >> > discarded. Maybe you come up with a solution that hasn't been tried. >> >> Beehive has such a design: >> >> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/786115/beehive >> >> Daniel(Continue reading)
Haven't seen much direct comment on this announcement. Was no one surprised, or was no one saddened? Ron On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: > Paul Blake, who initiated the 2010 ToyVault piecepack game design > contest, told me in email today that it is now extremely unlikely that > ToyVault will publish the piecepack in any form, and that he is no > longer employed there. > > This is bad news for the piecepack community, of course (not to > mention Paul), but at least the winners of the contest and any other > entrants can now publish their games on the Piecepack Wiki. I plan to > upload Relativity there later today. > > Ron H-E > > -- > Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768 > My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey > My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3 > -- -- Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768 My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3(Continue reading)
I'm sadden. I was hoping to buy a couple of plastic piecepack sets sometime, to play with my group of kids. I was thinking that a plastic set would be more resilient to the no-so-clean hands of the kids I'm used to playing with. The small amounts of grease in their little fingers do get absorbed by the wood in my current sets. Daniel On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:29:43 -0500, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: > Haven't seen much direct comment on this announcement. Was no one > surprised, or was no one saddened? > > Ron > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: >> Paul Blake, who initiated the 2010 ToyVault piecepack game design >> contest, told me in email today that it is now extremely unlikely that >> ToyVault will publish the piecepack in any form, and that he is no >> longer employed there. >> >> This is bad news for the piecepack community, of course (not to >> mention Paul), but at least the winners of the contest and any other >> entrants can now publish their games on the Piecepack Wiki. I plan to >> upload Relativity there later today. >> >> Ron H-E >> >> -- >> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ...(Continue reading)
I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure is just par for the rolling my eyes course. I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible thing with their logo on the back. But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :) Emily Page --------> follow me on twitter! <at> emilypage <------- On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: > ** > > > Haven't seen much direct comment on this announcement. Was no one > surprised, or was no one saddened? > > Ron > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: > > Paul Blake, who initiated the 2010 ToyVault piecepack game design > > contest, told me in email today that it is now extremely unlikely that > > ToyVault will publish the piecepack in any form, and that he is no(Continue reading)
As far as I'm away they don't have branches in my city, and probably not my country - so I haven't been following this news at all. Peter Cobcroft curufea@... Main: http://www.curufea.com/ ________________________________ From: Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> To: piecepack@... Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2011 5:29 AM Subject: [piecepack] Re: Sad ToyVault news Haven't seen much direct comment on this announcement. Was no one surprised, or was no one saddened? Ron On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote: > Paul Blake, who initiated the 2010 ToyVault piecepack game design > contest, told me in email today that it is now extremely unlikely that > ToyVault will publish the piecepack in any form, and that he is no > longer employed there. > > This is bad news for the piecepack community, of course (not to > mention Paul), but at least the winners of the contest and any other > entrants can now publish their games on the Piecepack Wiki. I plan to > upload Relativity there later today.(Continue reading)
Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes: > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure > is just par for the rolling my eyes course. One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses. Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free. Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free. It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for making a work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work. <URL:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the copyright holder. <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro> <URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>(Continue reading)
I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed, including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy Slider, and Castle Croquinole. I think there are quite a few others, but it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings. Marty On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote: > Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes: > > > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole > > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure > > is just par for the rolling my eyes course. > > One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there > are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses. > > Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial > redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative > Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free. > > Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any > redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free > restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the > Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free. > > It's unfortunate that Creative Commons includes options for making a(Continue reading)
RSS Feed9 | |
|---|---|
29 | |
5 | |
7 | |
3 | |
1 | |
4 | |
6 | |
3 | |
1 | |
5 | |
7 | |
1 | |
4 | |
2 | |
7 | |
5 | |
23 | |
9 | |
3 | |
19 | |
5 | |
7 | |
28 | |
14 | |
5 | |
44 | |
12 | |
8 | |
6 | |
17 | |
79 | |
25 | |
12 | |
1 | |
7 | |
12 | |
17 | |
3 | |
8 | |
2 | |
4 | |
6 | |
3 | |
28 | |
3 | |
5 | |
24 | |
25 | |
10 | |
5 | |
8 | |
10 | |
4 | |
5 | |
29 | |
14 | |
15 | |
9 | |
22 | |
114 | |
51 | |
59 | |
34 | |
16 | |
27 | |
35 | |
49 | |
5 | |
3 | |
6 | |
4 | |
59 | |
12 | |
7 | |
18 | |
30 | |
29 | |
3 | |
16 | |
9 | |
17 | |
50 | |
40 | |
38 | |
13 | |
31 | |
40 | |
32 | |
15 | |
52 | |
20 |
