Monster Keep — Removing Player Elimination

Is that in the game, you can make an OPPONENT LOSE "Morale Points" (MPs) or YOU can GAIN MPs! As the card pool for the game will GROW, I intend to add cards that provide a BENEFICIAL outcome to "skirmishes".

So this means if you are at -2 MPs and you roll a "2" (And you are Player #2) you can maybe use a unit to EARN +4 MPs giving you a +2 MPs... For example...

This will depend on how you build your deck and collect more cards to drive up the Morale level of your army.

Ultimately if you build a deck with some "negative fail-safes", you could be back in full control with just the right card in your play area...

I applaud your idea of using an "exciting" mechanic ... But on a player's turn he may ONLY "defeat ONE (1) opposing unit". So just being able to use one card to battle is ENOUGH.

Turn order goes like this:

1. Draw a card from your Deck.

2. Defeat one opposing card (skirmish).

3. Play one of your cards into play.

It's very simple... But deceptively HARD TO MASTER. It's not chess, but the "Area Control" mechanic is similar to Chess. What I mean is that you can "secure" areas in play to YOUR advantage. What this means is IF an opponent plays one of his cards in one of YOUR "secure" areas, that card will probably be defeated unless a stronger point alternative exists...

One other "aspect" that I failed to mention is that when all four (4) players are "in-the-game" they control all their cards. If a player gets eliminated there are two (2) concerns:

1. What to do with all the cards from that player that are in play?

2. If a player is eliminated, the game will not play out to 49 cards.

This is because each player has a MICRO Deck of twelve (12) cards. And there is one (1) Nexus card which governs the scoring (per se).

So in reality, I DON'T WANT "Player Elimination" because the game doesn't play out as it would normally... Having a player who was ravaged early doesn't mean that the player cannot land the final blow that decides who the "real winner" is.

I know in most cases, "The Keep" has 25 or 49 cards. Looks great on the playing surface, you can take a picture and use the Online Scoresheet to SAVE the game and how it progressed (from a scoring standpoint).

Anything LESS than that... Could lead to some "confusion" as to HOW to treat the "Eliminated" Player's cards, etc.

So while Player Elimination is maybe not the "End All" ... It introduces some difficulties in resolving "game-related" issues WHEN THERE IS "Player Elimination"...

Therefore my conclusion is: to avoid "Player Elimination" because it kind of "mucks-up" the neatness of the design.

Does this sound logical???

My estimates are that approximately 10% of all games will see one of the four (4) Players falling to a score of less than 0 MPs. This is a very small minority of games. And furthermore this occurs in the last 10 to 15 minutes of a game (usually).

So we are talking about the last quarter or third of a game. Since four (4) player games play in about 40 to 45 minutes and is a rather quick game, I don't think a small penalty of losing ONE (1) card in play is the "End of the World" for a player who finds himself going into a negative MP score...

If a simple choice of "trashing" a card in play results in about +10 MPs... That to me sounds rather realistic and the game can continue along until it is completed "normally".

The basic idea is that you voluntarily concede "Area Control" by sacrificing ONE (1) of your cards in "The Keep". It's similar to losing a battle or SKIRMISH: again you would flip over one (1) card, earn POSITIVE MPs and then the game continues...

Nothing overly complicated or DIFFERENT from a normal "skirmish" where one player defeats another player's unit. I don't want to create a separate style of play just because 10% of games may have one player elimination, quite the opposite, I want the problem to be resolved quickly and as easy as possible. Flipping a card and earning +10 MPs seems to be a just way to get back into the game.

Cheers!

Let's just talk some more about the game, it's depth of strategy and some of the things that make the game work.

To begin, let me talk first about the two (2) Player Duels.

The thing about the duels is that either you win or you lose. It's binary. There are no other influences except your card play and the "luck" in the draw of the cards for your hand.

The "randomness" of Deck Shuffling and Drawing a card each turn, can pace the game SLOW or FAST. What I mean is depending on what cards you get, you may be continually defeating an opposing card OR you could be "turtling" and simply playing for "Area Control" and controlling the area of play (to eventually force your opponent to make a mistake or run out of options).

But the important factor to remember is that "Weaker" (From a deck construction point-of-view) need to pair up with "Stronger" cards to score the most amount of damage to your army's Morale. And just because you faced a big upset does not mean that on your NEXT turn, you can inflict the same or more damage to your opponent's Morale... It's a real dichotomy.

So IF you reduce a player's Morale Points (MPs) to ZERO (0) or below... Well there exist two possibilities:

1. End the game declaring a winner.

2. Give the player with the negative balance a chance to "sacrifice" a card and continue playing until the end of the twelfth (12th) round.

Both points are valid in a two (2) Player Duel.

Four (4) Multiplayer games are far less "predictable". With three (3) other opponents, it becomes more challenging to figure out who to skirmish with and when to do so.

"Area Control" is less obvious also. Again you have to worry about more cards in play since the board is almost 2x the size (49 vs. 25 cards).

Now what I am about to say, might sound weird but bare with me.

If a player OPENS UP the table to high scoring opportunities he does this as if it were a double-edged sword. As I explained in the 2 Player section, it's all about "pairings". So the problem is you may be on the LOSING END of a pairing and lose -15 MPs in one skirmish. That is like 1/3 of your total with one attack. If it happens with one player, it COULD happen with a second player too. So you could lose -45 MPs by playing the wrong card in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Sure there is a question of TIMING. It's ALL ABOUT "Timing"! And some hand luck too... My previous statement about losing -45 MPs because of one card is possible. Highly unlikely, but possible. And if YOU are the one on the end of receiving such crippling attacks, the conclusion is that you will probably NOT be the winning player. Are you OUT??? Let's assume not. But focus shifts on the other players and their cards. With 5 MPs can you WIN? I've seen games of 5 vs. 3 MPs happen... So it's not IMPOSSIBLE (Notice I don't have 4 Player experience YET... this is all academic thinking).

Are you OUT of the game? No. You can play your cards as normally. Take a NORMAL card turn. But point-wise, you are at a disadvantage.

So do you be-grudge your other players ... because they capitalized (combined with real bad luck — it's possible but not probable) on one mistake in time and in position to BLAME the other players. It was a real bad move... And it was costly. But IF there is no "Player Elimination", the other players will naturally shift their attention to the other players.

And you can continue to "chip-away" at one of the leading players... With NO "Player Elimination" that player becomes a pain... Because he's one of the reasons you must overcome if you are expected to WIN!

Again nothing prevents the weakest player from ACING one of the leaders later in the game... If it happened to that player, there are ODDS of it happening to another player (and what I mean a loss of -15 MPs not -45 MPs...)

So NOBODY becomes AI. And NOBODY gets removed from making invaluable decisions in future rounds. As I mentioned it's just unfortunate one player made a real bad move which everyone else "exploited" and resulted in a poor Morale score.

What does all this mean???

Clearly it means that more and more, I think the game SHOULD play out to twelve (12) Rounds for both Duels and Multiplayer games. Why not? With the simple sacrifice of one (1) card makes for a reasonable way to continue the game until it is completed 100%.

I don't think this is a GRUDGE creating game.

But EPIC ERRORS will definitely be REMEMBERED! And, TBH, why should it not be this way???

Thanks @Tim for your insight... It got me wanting to post more about what it is that COULD happen... And since it's only a 40-45 minute game for 4 Players... I think it becomes more forgiving in terms of the outcome.

Cheers!

What give you the "feeling" that "Monster Keep" (MK) will not be engaging and not an "unfair" game? You seem to be making an assumption that MK is like "Diplomacy" and the games are extremely different from each other:

1. Diplomacy is a board game with parts similar to Risk. Monster Keep is a "Customizable" Card Game (CCG).

2. When you buy and play Diplomacy, you do so based on what the "standard" board offers you and the various countries being controlled. Monster Keep allows players to build a "dynamic" play area known as "The Keep".

3. Diplomacy is a Faction-based game with various countries. Monster Keep is flexible to support nine (9) Races each with their own distinctive flavor and unique blend of abilities.

I don't see where there are similarities between Diplomacy and Monster Keep. The two (2) games couldn't be diametrically opposed from one and the other. There is no "lack of hope" when controlling the space in "The Keep" ... it all depends on the cards you draw, when you draw them and where you play them. A very different game experience (if you ask me).

So please do share with me you "insight" in how you can compare the two games, mentioning that how one game resolves the "status-quo" of a four (4) player competitive game...

Right now that's the ONLY link that I see: both games are competitive games.