Skip to Content
 

Streamlining Actions results

12 replies [Last post]
Sun, 10/17/2021 - 21:13
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

I figured I'd share an update concerning the "Actions" available in "Quest v2", the 2nd Edition of "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)".

So while I shouldn't really be working on this Design since it is really not at the point I can make something commercially viable, it is still a real "passion" project and for some reason the ideas have been flowing for this design.

Best if I explain how "streamlining" the game's Actions has made for a better concept/design.

In the prior version, I had eight (8) Actions planned for the game. And I realized that when designing cards ... That was TOO MUCH. If there were eighteen (18) cards, that would mean about 2 per Action. Not great. And of great concern for me ... Because it needed to be less variety and more of the "core" Actions.

This led me to remove the "Shuffle" Action and make it an Action that can be done on each and every Fragment (card) at a cost of at most 3 Income per Hero.

Next I was left with seven (7) Actions and I realized that the "Fortify" Action could be removed since it was a variant of the "Convert" Action. It basically had a one-to-many relationship and the "Convert" Action is many-to-many and therefore more versatile.

Of course this meant that I had six (6) Actions left over. And the "Train" Action was too similar to the "Convert" action and so I felt it would be good to change it to an "Input Party" produces an "Output Party".

So let's look at a "Train" example:

Let's say the LEFT side has Yellow + Red Heroes and the RIGHT side has an Orange Hero. (Expressed as: Yellow + Red ^ Orange). It means: "For each Yellow and Red Heroes, you gain one Orange Hero." So another way of accumulating more Heroes for the Active Quest and growing the overall party by one Hero.

It's been a very intense couple weeks and this design has been in the fore-front of my thoughts which is helping me to tighten this design to something much more "streamlined".

There is still the requirement that you NEED a "Recruit" Action fragment (card) to start a Player's Build Engine to be able to do something... Because you cannot do nothing without A HERO (or several). And the only fragment (card) that allows you to get Heroes are the ones with the "Recruit" Action.

That concludes my work over the last couple weeks. It's been slow going but still very positive. Like I said, I shouldn't be working on this design... What can I say, I got some good ideas and re-worked them into something real!

Cheers.

Top
Sun, 10/17/2021 - 22:50
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Been also re-tweaking the first 22 cards

Because of the removal and re-purposing of some of the Actions, I have been forced to re-tweak (think fix) the first 22 cards from the first Quest ("The Dwarven Miner").

These were minor corrections, since as I said in the OP, some of the Actions were not very useful and could be replaced by many-to-many Fragments which are much more compatible with the game in general (more flexible).

Here is the NEW distribution:

  • Battle = 5
  • Convert = 4
  • Match = 3
  • Recruit = 5
  • Train = 3
  • Trap = 2

This seems to be okay. Notice you can populate your deck with up to three (3) of each Fragment... So enough variety to figure out the best possible Deck given this distribution. Cheers!

Top
Mon, 10/18/2021 - 17:07
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The streamlines Actions are similar to ...

The resulting Actions are a bit like "Mini-Games" and have specific rules when dealing with "Heroes" that go about and venture forth on adventures. I know I asked in another thread IDEAS concerning "Mini-Games" and as it stands now ... The Actions are pretty solid.

I could MAYBE work on the "distribution" and make some of the Actions more even such that the are more "equality" likely. I thought about this last night and while it could be possible... I don't see the NEED for it.

Anyhow we'll see once I finish the cards/Fragments for the First (1st) Quest.

Note #1: The Actions are fairly intuitive except for a couple of them. Let me explain in the right order rather than in alphabetical order.

Action Description
Recruit : Add Heroes to your Timeline.
Train : Add Heroes given a Party in your Timeline.
Convert : Change between Heroes in your Timeline.
Match : Use a Party to match the given criteria.
Trap : Remove Heroes from your Timeline.
Battle : Remove Heroes as per the conquest rules.

That's the summary of the Action (minus Shuffle). Gives you an impression that not too much is "going-on". On the contrary, another reason that I streamlined the Actions ... Was because there was TOO MUCH going-on! (LOL)

Note #2: Generally speaking, there are two (2) of each type of Action: Add, Change (alter) and Remove (subtract).

Note #3: And the "Shuffle" Action is a special Action that is available to the player from each card/Fragment. It is a special "Change" (alter) action which changes only one Hero at a time and is paid for using Income each time it is used.

Top
Mon, 10/18/2021 - 22:18
#3
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Action Points (APs) vs. Income (Treasury)

So one of the aspects that is less intuitive is how "Income" leads to "Action Points" (APs). Generally speaking ALL moves or play cost at least 1 AP. Or in direct comparison 1 Income. But if a Fragment cost 6 Income to play... It makes sense to regard this as Income being spent (not Action Points).

But from the opposite perspective, moving Heroes or performing a Fragment's Action ... This all sounds better to cost 1 Action Point (AP) and the payment comes from the Treasury.

I'm still struggling with this double-notation of Points. In addition the game has "Victory Points" (VPs) too. VPs serve as point required to complete a Quest. There is no confusion in this context. VPs are very CLEAR.

Anyone have any thoughts? Should I use ONLY Income or is it better to have BOTH Income and Action Points (APs) too depending on the nature of the aspect being examined in the game.

Please feel free to share with me your thoughts... Cheers!

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 10:21
#4
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Resources

You might want to re-define how you think about resources.
A resource is something that you gather in order to spend.

Having 2 or more resources in the game makes things weird if all resources are used on the same subject.

In a sense. AP can be considered to be resources that are handed out every time frame of the game. Only to be spend moments later.
There is no need to spend another resource in the exact same way. Unless you want to regulate the players behavior.
You regulate players if 2 resources are used the same way on the same mechanic.
You allow more freedom, if one of the resources is used as support material for the other resource.
Especially if there are minor differences in income, spending and storage of such support resource.

With spending, I am talking about forcing player to spend or not. Or the amount that need, changes within the round.
Most games use a linear cost. You want 1? You spend 1. You want 5? You spend 5.
A cumulative cost can be observed in 2 ways.
One: A more expensive choice (piece or action) will cost an increased amount. If a choice is worth 2, you ask the players to spend 3.
Two: You want the players to spread out their spending. In a way, this is regulating them as well. This time, you pay 1. But you want the same thing again, so the next time, you pay 2. Now you have 2 for the price of 3. But the payment is cut in 2 moments. A player can choose to get 3 for 3 at several moments instead. I know this is a bit abstract.

***

I have 1 resource for each mechanic in my games:
- Credits; to buy units and structures. It has to be gathered in the game or is automated income. The income can be variable, depending on the situation in the game. There can be a limited storage or a limitless storage, depending on the mission rules. Players don't have to spend credits. Spending is linear. Excess credits are brought into the next round.
- Action Points; to order units and structures. It is automated income. The income is barely variable, depending on the situation in the game. In most cases, a fixed amount per round. There is no storage. Players are forced to use AP. Spending is between linear and cumulative. Every round will be a reset.
- Strategy Points; to support action points. It is automated income. The income depends on the units and structures that players have chosen before a game. Players don't have to spend SP. Storage is limitless. Spending is just like that of the AP, between linear and cumulative. Excess SP are brought into the next round.
- Experience Points; to support credits. It is a variable income, depending on the situation in the game. Storage is limitless. Spending is linear. Players don't have to spend XP. Excess XP are brought into the next round.

The cumulative costs in my game are both mentioned mechanics.
Maybe it makes more sense if I explain how it happens in my game.

One:
A movement costs 1 AP.
An attack costs 1 AP.
A movements AND attack in one turn costs 3 AP.

The benefits for doing both in 1 turn is that the squad can be more effective. Or the enemy has no time to run away.
The drawback for doing both in 1 turn is that the squad can receive multiple penalties. And the player runs out of AP much faster.
Which is countered by some units that hardly suffer from this.

Two:
A movement costs 1 AP.
1 turn passes...
An attack with the same squad costs 2 AP.

The benefits for doing both in 2 turns is that there are no penalties. Or, the player can decide otherwise with the 2 other AP on other squads. On which the next action might cost only 1 AP.
The drawback is that the enemy might run away. Which is countered by the fact that this is intended by the player who moved closer to begin with.

***

I remember you suggesting that I would have 2 resources for my units and structures. But that would mean that I start regulating my players in what they can purchase. I would limit their choices. Still, the choices would be either 2 average or 2 extremes. But choices like an extreme with an average would be bad with 2 resources. While the combination might proof to be very interesting with just 1 resource.

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 16:16
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How does that apply in my context???

X3M wrote:
Having 2 or more resources in the game makes things weird if all resources are used on the same subject.

Well essentially they are different ASPECTS of the game. For example, if you want to play a card from your Hand to the Active Quest, that costs a certain amount of Income. Each card has a cost and can perform one Action.

The place where there is a bit of overlap is when you "perform" the Action on the card themselves. Should these "Actions" require Income or Action Points (APs)??

Ultimately they are the same resource, it's still going to cost you Income from your Treasury.

But for clarity is it best to use Income in all cases or both depending on what is being done???

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 18:05
#6
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Is the card discarded once

Is the card discarded once used? If so, then that is the second resource.
Unless you want to take away freedom somewhere else in the game. Once a player decided to use that card. Thus the AP is also reduced by 1. Meaning that somewhere else in the game, the actions are limited.

I think that you need to playtest both situations.
One where you also use AP.
And one where the AP are not used.

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 19:40
#7
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Further thoughts...?

X3M wrote:
Is the card discarded once used?

No discarded cards are from your Hand. Or if some kind of "Tactic" on one of the other cards.

So actually the card (or Fragment) is PLAYED into your "Active Quest" (Timeline) which is comprised of 1 or more cards. Each card in the timeline allows you to perform ONE Action. To perform that Action, costs 1 Income. Or in my mind, 1 AP.

But then you have WORKERS (think cubes) which are your Heroes and they can form Parties. When you move a Party of 3 Heroes from one card to another, that is a form of "Travelling" and it costs either 0 or 1 Income. This movement to me it sounds better if it would cost 0 or 1 APs.

It's really a NAMING thing not a playtesting issue. Everything in the END costs INCOME to do. I just wasn't sure if I wanted Action Points (APs) for things which are more "Action" or "Actionable" things within the game.

What do you think???

Note #1: The more I think about it... the more I think it is best to leave it ALL as costing Income. The one (1) of two "resources" in the game...

Then you would have "Victory Points" (VPs) for completing Quests and Income to pay for all kinds of Fragments (cards), Actions and Workers (Heroes).

Something like that.

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 20:13
#8
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A name is a name

Action points can only be used for actions.
But actions don't nessesarily cost action points.
Other resources can come into play. You don't need to indicate an action with action points at all.

You also pay for a plane ticket. You don't pay with fuel ;)

Top
Tue, 10/19/2021 - 20:41
#9
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Further explanation

X3M wrote:
Action points can only be used for actions. But actions don't necessarily cost action points.

Ok.

X3M wrote:
Other resources can come into play. You don't need to indicate an action with action points at all.

The only resource in my game is the Treasury. At the start of the game you have 0 cards in it (but you get an advance of 3 Income per turn but not cumulative). So if you complete a Quest with 3 Fragments (cards) you don't get any supplemental Income only 3 Income per turn.

That's why there is a BALANCE in completing quests and earning more income for your future Build Engine.

Fragments (or cards) cost "a resource" to put into your Active Quest (timeline). The cost varies between 1 to 9 Income. Obviously you see an exploit in only building a deck with LOWER points. Of course this is hardly good since the amount of Victory Points (VPs) required to complete a quest go from 15 to 20 to 25 (so a Total of 60 VPs to Win).

And so you need to BALANCE your Deck too to ensure that there are sufficient POINTS in it to win the game. If you run out of cards in your Deck, no worry just re-shuffle the discard pile and place it as your new Deck.

X3M wrote:
You also pay for a plane ticket. You don't pay with fuel ;)

That makes some sense... too.

So moving Workers (Heroes) around sounds OK to cost Income??? And playing an action that affects your Heroes sound OK to cost Income too?!

Let me know if this all does sound reasonable.

Note #1: What I am getting at is this:

1. If you have some Heroes (say a Party) and you want to move it from one Fragment (think Monster Lair) to another (say a Monster), you must move in groups of "3" or less with the dominant class of Heroes deciding the cost of the movement. If you are predominantly Yellow and the Monster Fragment is Yellow too... This would cost 0 Income to move your Party.

But if the Monster is Blue, you would need to pay 1 Income to move your Party (which consists at most of 3 Heroes).

2. When playing an action like Recruit, Train, Convert, Match, Trap and Battle, you pay 1 Income for each time an action is invoked on a turn. Here's where my BALANCE to win quests faster and having a stronger Treasury example shines. See if you only have 3 Income and Recruiting 3 "Paladins and/or Knights" costs 3 Income ... If you had too poor of a Treasury ... Your turn would END.

But if you are working on your second (2nd) quest and you managed to finish the previous one with five (5) Fragments, your income would be 5 Income per turn. And that would leave you with 2 Income to do something else ... before ending your turn.

Do you understand how this Engine Building works??? It is predominantly focused on Income (from your Treasury) and balancing between Heroes, quests and Income available to you on each of your turns.

The more Income, the more you can do on a turn. However lagging behind someone who is trying to RUSH a game and perform the minimum required to WIN the game by completing the 3 quest (15, 20 and 25 VPs)... Is also important. You may not worry about the average player if your Deck is Moderate. But if your opponent's Deck is Fast, you need to watch what he/she is doing and quicken your Build Engine by making it faster too...

Note #2: There is also the example of the Tortoise and the Hare. A Player may be working on trying to rapidly finish his 3rd quest while his opponent is just finishing his 2nd quest with many more Fragments (and therefore each card translates to +1 Income) for the 3rd quest.

The result is while the Hare was ahead, he/she is limited to the amount of actions they may perform on their turn. Whereas the Tortoise Player may have a significant advantage by having more Income for the last (3rd) quest...

Again there are no guarantees, sometimes a "rushed" build may win the game and in other cases the lagging player may out-manoeuvre his opponent by having more Income in his/her Treasury and catch-up...

It depends on each game ... I can't say one method is better than the other.

Top
Wed, 10/20/2021 - 06:07
#10
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Going to the shop to get some

Going to the shop to get some bread and head back home. Costs me time. This is often replaced by action points.

Although, does it cost me money?
I could use a bike. Then i need less time.
I could use a car. The time needed is greatly reduced.

The thing with this is, I can spend money in order to go somewhere.
But once spend, I don't need to spend it more.
Money is used to buy the tools. So perhaps you can use that.
Only fuel is something that depletes and was bought.

So, if you use money to move around. You only do this to make it faster. But once bought, depending on the tools, it remains. Also, fuel is the only thing that needs to be purchased over and over.

Horses need fuel, it is called hay ;)

Top
Wed, 10/20/2021 - 11:08
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Let me clarify a bit...

X3M wrote:
Going to the shop to get some bread and head back home. Costs me time. This is often replaced by action points.

Well then Traveling in the "Monster Lair" to reach the "Monster" takes time too... Previously this would cost 1 Income (for a Party of 3 Heroes). But here is where I was going to say it costs 1 AP (Action Point).

X3M wrote:
Although, does it cost me money?
I could use a bike. Then I need less time.
I could use a car. The time needed is greatly reduced.

For the sake of my game... Traveling costs Income. Or some kind of conversion of Income to Action Points. Maybe my Heroes are like "contractors": they want to be paid during the journey not at the very end of it... (LOL)

X3M wrote:
The thing with this is, I can spend money in order to go somewhere.
But once spend, I don't need to spend it more.

That works for me too. Spend to move and if you want to move MORE, you MUST spend more to travel further. That makes a lot of sense too.

X3M wrote:
So, if you use money to move around. You only do this to make it faster.

What about as a SALARY: your Heroes are paid to move around and perform "Actions". Your Royal Highness and his Queen must PAY them to work for the Crown! (LOL)

And maybe you do move around using Horses, that part of the game is "undefined". You just need to move Heroes around the Active Quest and perform Actions. So when you SPEND 1 Income to Recruit a Thief and/or Assassin, that is a COST that you lose (it is spent) and then you now have a Thief and/or Assassin to work for the Crown...

X3M wrote:
But once bought, depending on the tools, it remains. Also, fuel is the only thing that needs to be purchased over and over.

Horses need fuel, it is called hay ;)

Like I said, you may be traveling by foot or by carriage... It doesn't really matter... It still costs 1 Income to move a Party of 3 Heroes (generally speaking because it can also cost 0 Income too - under certain circumstances).

But you can move "x" Parties where they each cost 1 Income too. So to move 9 Heroes costs you 3 Income (generally speaking).

Is any of this making sense??? Are we establishing the need for APs or not?!

Top
Wed, 10/20/2021 - 19:40
#12
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Is any of this

questccg wrote:
Is any of this making sense??? Are we establishing the need for APs or not?!

If you are having doubts in what you want to do. Perhaps it is better to sleep on it. And perhaps you can make it so, that AP are used. Yet players don't use them. I kinda liked the idea of that one game. Where the player has X AP. And calculates from the head.

Maybe you should simply go for it. And if it feels bad. Or you get comments on it. Remove it again.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut