Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Semi-co-op / Semi-competitive? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Been reading all the commentary on the forums about semi-co-op games lately, and it sparked an idea.

A game with two possible end states:

1) One player triggers a game end condition and loses, every one else 'wins' in a tie.

2) One player triggers a game end condition and wins, every one else loses.

If a player wants to get the solo win, they need to help prevent any other player from losing. On the other hand, if you don't think you can achieve a solo win first, you can push to eliminate someone for a group win.

This is meant to play on the social dynamics that specifically make semi-co-op fail in some groups. Solo win is best win, group win is better than no win (since someone does lose and there is no better winner), and obviously lose is bad in any case.

For the group win to be successful, I feel that there can't be traditional scoring or ranking. Solo win condition would need to be binary and not threshold based, so that you can't get a group win and still declare a 'best' winner. Maybe hidden objectives?

My biggest fear is that some groups would just instantly go for the group win with no attempts at jockeying for solo win, because a win is a win in that group. It probably wouldn't be fun for the sacrificial player.


Anyway, I just wanted to bounce this off the community, since semi-co-op is so divisive. Does this semi-co-op/semi-competitive idea sound like something that could work with your group? My group doesn't seem to mind the semi-co-op problems to begin with, so it is hard to judge the opinions of those who have strong feelings about these things.


Reading material about semi-co-ops:

Are semi-co-op games flawed?

Thoughts on semi co-op games. Are they flawed?

Semi-cooperative games: what you think about them?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Hawkins
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
I do recording, mixing, and mastering! Contact me if you're interested!
badge
Please remove your cursor from my avatar.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love semi co-op games, myself. What you're describing sort of reminds me of Dead of Winter. It's slightly different than what you've laid out here in that typically only one player's personal hidden objective comes at the expense of the rest of the group, but if you haven't played it, considering giving it a shot.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Dead of Winter seems to be one of the leading ideas for successful semi-co-op. I have not played it yet, but I understand how it works and the tensions is creates.

However, if they're relatively sure there is no traitor, players will still attempt to tank the game and cause a group loss if they don't feel they can accomplish the personal goal required to win.

The typical hierarchy of desirable outcomes is:

1) I win alone.
2) I win with others.
3) Everyone places the same (win or lose).
4) I lose when others win.

The idea I mentioned above is trying to play off of priority 1 and 2, while removing most of 3 since there will always be one clearly identifiable winner or loser.


Perhaps I should have just asked if people are satisfied by games where there is a sole loser and everyone else wins? Cockroach Poker comes to mind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mbmb
crinaya wrote:
Dead of Winter seems to be one of the leading ideas for successful semi-co-op. I have not played it yet, but I understand how it works and the tensions is creates.

However, if they're relatively sure there is no traitor, players will still attempt to tank the game and cause a group loss if they don't feel they can accomplish the personal goal required to win.

The typical hierarchy of desirable outcomes is:

1) I win alone.
2) I win with others.
3) Everyone places the same (win or lose).
4) I lose when others win.

The idea I mentioned above is trying to play off of priority 1 and 2, while removing most of 3 since there will always be one clearly identifiable winner or loser.


Perhaps I should have just asked if people are satisfied by games where there is a sole loser and everyone else wins? Cockroach Poker comes to mind.


I don't see how this would be a typical hierarchy among people who like coop-games or among people who just plain simple approach the game more thematically and feel like not having the most food in the end is bad, but being responsible for everyone dying is worse.

In the three different groups I play DoW I never experienced someone being that much of a bad loser.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
nvsg wrote:
crinaya wrote:
Dead of Winter seems to be one of the leading ideas for successful semi-co-op. I have not played it yet, but I understand how it works and the tensions is creates.

However, if they're relatively sure there is no traitor, players will still attempt to tank the game and cause a group loss if they don't feel they can accomplish the personal goal required to win.

The typical hierarchy of desirable outcomes is:

1) I win alone.
2) I win with others.
3) Everyone places the same (win or lose).
4) I lose when others win.

The idea I mentioned above is trying to play off of priority 1 and 2, while removing most of 3 since there will always be one clearly identifiable winner or loser.


Perhaps I should have just asked if people are satisfied by games where there is a sole loser and everyone else wins? Cockroach Poker comes to mind.


I don't see how this would be a typical hierarchy among people who like coop-games or among people who just plain simple approach the game more thematically and feel like not having the most food in the end is bad, but being responsible for everyone dying is worse.

In the three different groups I play DoW I never experienced someone being that much of a bad loser.


I'm quoting the typical detractors of semi-co-op games in the multiple threads that have been bouncing around the BGG forums. I'll link to those threads once I'm home and not on mobile.

Since the idea is to appeal to these gamers in specific, I need to adopt that mindset.

If you were playing a game that offered an easy albeit mean group win, or a harder fought solo win, what would you strive for?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
crinaya wrote:
Solo win is best win, group win is better than no win (since someone does lose and there is no better winner), and obviously lose is bad in any case.


Not quite. Losing is a fine conclusion...as long as nobody else wins.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
crinaya wrote:
Solo win is best win, group win is better than no win (since someone does lose and there is no better winner), and obviously lose is bad in any case.


Not quite. Losing is a fine conclusion...as long as nobody else wins.


In the specific game end states given in the original post, there is always a winner and loser. The options are one loser and all others win, or one winner and all others lose.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
crinaya wrote:


Added links to other threads to initial post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
patrick mullen
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Time to PAFO (play and find out) this sucker. Find a game that might fit these mechanics, make some house rules, and sick it on some unsuspecting playtesters. We can all theorize about how this won't fix semi-coop for people who don't like it, but without trying it it's hard to tell. Maybe Dead of Winter would be a good candidate? Print up your own goals cards that bring these win states to the forefront.

I don't think this will fix the problem for those who are really against semi-coop though. The problem with semi-coop in my mind is the "semi" part. You don't know what game you are playing when you sit down, so it is hard to set expectations. When you play a competitive game, you begin with a certain mindset - do everything I can to be better than the others; and when you play a cooporative game, it takes a very different one - play as a team, make sure everyone is having a good time, and try to collectively choose the best strategy. With semi-coop, you have to adjust your mindset as you go, and may find in the end you were playing the wrong game. It can create some awesome experiences, but also some frustrating moments.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Horizon Games
United States
California
flag msg tools
publisher
GMT makes a wargame called The Napoleonic Wars. It's a single-player victory game, but because France is so powerful, it typically requires several players acting in concert to stop them. But at the same time, since only one of those players can win the game themselves, they have to constantly balance how much to provide to the common cause.

The thing about this mechanic is that it produces games that vary radically depending on how experienced the players are. New people tend to remain on the side in which they started, and see it as a "team" game, even if intellectually they understand the victory condition.

Experienced players, by contrast, are generally far more willing to form and break alliances for their own self-interest, since they do see it as a single-player victory condition.

Personally, I prefer semi co-op to co-op with traitors.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
patrick mullen
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
travellerccg wrote:
GMT makes a wargame called The Napoleonic Wars. It's a single-player victory game, but because France is so powerful, it typically requires several players acting in concert to stop them. But at the same time, since only one of those players can win the game themselves, they have to constantly balance how much to provide to the common cause.

The thing about this mechanic is that it produces games that vary radically depending on how experienced the players are. New people tend to remain on the side in which they started, and see it as a "team" game, even if intellectually they understand the victory condition.

Experienced players, by contrast, are generally far more willing to form and break alliances for their own self-interest, since they do see it as a single-player victory condition.

Personally, I prefer semi co-op to co-op with traitors.



What happens if you end up in a game where some of the players want to end in the team victory, and some are playing for the individual one?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
saluk wrote:
travellerccg wrote:
GMT makes a wargame called The Napoleonic Wars. It's a single-player victory game, but because France is so powerful, it typically requires several players acting in concert to stop them. But at the same time, since only one of those players can win the game themselves, they have to constantly balance how much to provide to the common cause.

The thing about this mechanic is that it produces games that vary radically depending on how experienced the players are. New people tend to remain on the side in which they started, and see it as a "team" game, even if intellectually they understand the victory condition.

Experienced players, by contrast, are generally far more willing to form and break alliances for their own self-interest, since they do see it as a single-player victory condition.

Personally, I prefer semi co-op to co-op with traitors.



What happens if you end up in a game where some of the players want to end in the team victory, and some are playing for the individual one?


In the example of The Napoleonic Wars, there is no team victory. Teamwork is required because one player is given a significant advantage, but at the end of the game only one player wins.

Reminds me of an anecdote from one of those semi-co-op threads about a game of Dead of Winter. The players determined that there was no traitor and managed to overcome to group objective, but only one player met their personal goal. Technically everyone else lost, but they were happy to lose because the colony survived. The winner couldn't figure out why everyone kept pushing ahead for a loss.


In the idea that I started this thread with, a player that wants to solo win would need to help anyone getting weak enough that the team win players might be able to eliminate them. Over the course of the game, the weak players may change, and the team win players may have a chance to achieve solo win, so I imagine it would make alliances very loose.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Web
msg tools
crinaya wrote:

My biggest fear is that some groups would just instantly go for the group win with no attempts at jockeying for solo win, because a win is a win in that group. It probably wouldn't be fun for the sacrificial player.

Oh you bet those those people exist. They will even try to find a way to win together with their friends in a game that is made to win for 1 person by winning in the same turn. As if, alliances in game are carried over to real life, and vice versa. It really ruins the fun, because now, the rest of the players have either the choices to ally themselves with each other knowing that only one person in the alliance will win. It becomes a choice between either letting the other group win or flip a dice and decide who wins in the rest of the alliance.

crinaya wrote:

Anyway, I just wanted to bounce this off the community, since semi-co-op is so divisive. Does this semi-co-op/semi-competitive idea sound like something that could work with your group? My group doesn't seem to mind the semi-co-op problems to begin with, so it is hard to judge the opinions of those who have strong feelings about these things.


I think it is hard to make it work, because it gives a lot of power to 1 individual person on the game. Say I am angry at Bob who triggered 1) while I almost won, then being a retard, I decide to weaken myself in the next game so that 2) will never be triggered. Of course usually when this happens, most games break, but not as much as semi-co-op games.

It could work for a hardcore competitive group tho. For sure!

As a suggestion, what if you make it so that every round, 1 person gets eliminated and plays a different role (as the computer or an npc) in the next rounds, all until 1 person is the winner, UNLESS someone in a round triggers condition 2 (very rare, need luck and hidden information and skills), and wins by default.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
zetoooo wrote:
crinaya wrote:

My biggest fear is that some groups would just instantly go for the group win with no attempts at jockeying for solo win, because a win is a win in that group. It probably wouldn't be fun for the sacrificial player.

Oh you bet those those people exist. They will even try to find a way to win together with their friends in a game that is made to win for 1 person by winning in the same turn. As if, alliances in game are carried over to real life, and vice versa. It really ruins the fun, because now, the rest of the players have either the choices to ally themselves with each other knowing that only one person in the alliance will win. It becomes a choice between either letting the other group win or flip a dice and decide who wins in the rest of the alliance.



Having played cooperative Legendary: Marvel, and enjoyed it, I'm sure it exists too. I've also ended a game of Risk in a two player negotiated tie (because no one wants to roll an 80+ army per side fight).

I guess the devil-in-the-details will be trying to balance the need for teamplay. I'm thinking of keeping the loss condition and win condition loosely related so it's easier to mitigate one without directly impacting the other.


zetoooo wrote:
crinaya wrote:

Anyway, I just wanted to bounce this off the community, since semi-co-op is so divisive. Does this semi-co-op/semi-competitive idea sound like something that could work with your group? My group doesn't seem to mind the semi-co-op problems to begin with, so it is hard to judge the opinions of those who have strong feelings about these things.


I think it is hard to make it work, because it gives a lot of power to 1 individual person on the game. Say I am angry at Bob who triggered 1) while I almost won, then being a retard, I decide to weaken myself in the next game so that 2) will never be triggered. Of course usually when this happens, most games break, but not as much as semi-co-op games.

It could work for a hardcore competitive group tho. For sure!

As a suggestion, what if you make it so that every round, 1 person gets eliminated and plays a different role (as the computer or an npc) in the next rounds, all until 1 person is the winner, UNLESS someone in a round triggers condition 2 (very rare, need luck and hidden information and skills), and wins by default.


Agreed that balance will be hell, especially since functional balance in one group may not apply to all groups equally.

If the end game conditions do work as anticipated, I'd be easy to rework loss into player elimination (an equally perilous design choice).

Another option I've considered is to design around multi-round scoring with short rounds, weighing the solo win to be worth much more than a team win. However, now you're into meta-gaming where previous rounds may heavily influence decisions. "You got a solo win, so now let's make you lose every game until we catch up."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quentin N.
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen several games or game scenarios that have a reminder of the goal and the alliance rules. This is something that rely purely on the player's will, as the game can't punish those that ingnore the rules, but in my experience it works well.

As soon as things are written in the rules, everybody usually follows them, and seeing them not respected is as rare as seeing a cheating player.
And that is what such a game would need: settle down all the players on the same foundations, to make sure that everybody will play the same game.
For example:

-a solo victory is always better that a team victory, just as a solo loss is always worse than a team loss, no matter what.
-alliances are made to be tied and broken. And yes, that means sometimes not predictably. No alliance shall be, in the spirit of when it was tied, unbreakable (although it might last for the whole game).
-no alliance/ agreement shall impact more than the length of the game. That means no pre-game agreement, and no agreement from one game to the other.
-The game is totally distinct from the real life. So, "no sex tonight if" and "let's avenge from Dan because he --- last week" are forbidden.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Mimolette wrote:
I've seen several games or game scenarios that have a reminder of the goal and the alliance rules. This is something that rely purely on the player's will, as the game can't punish those that ingnore the rules, but in my experience it works well.

As soon as things are written in the rules, everybody usually follows them, and seeing them not respected is as rare as seeing a cheating player.
And that is what such a game would need: settle down all the players on the same foundations, to make sure that everybody will play the same game.
For example:

-a solo victory is always better that a team victory, just as a solo loss is always worse than a team loss, no matter what.
-alliances are made to be tied and broken. And yes, that means sometimes not predictably. No alliance shall be, in the spirit of when it was tied, unbreakable (although it might last for the whole game).
-no alliance/ agreement shall impact more than the length of the game. That means no pre-game agreement, and no agreement from one game to the other.
-The game is totally distinct from the real life. So, "no sex tonight if" and "let's avenge from Dan because he --- last week" are forbidden.



A good chuckle, that last line.

A lot of the semi-co-op debate centers around the value of team loss. Some call a team loss a tie, and some call a team loss a failure, and a lot of that seems to come down to competitiveness or thematic immersion. Not sure if the rulebook can really change that feeling, unless the player is already pretty malleable and receptive to the idea.



As far as rulebooks being written to explicitly exclude meta-gaming, I'm not sure that would go over very well. In my first game of Ca$h 'n Gun$, the very first round everyone aimed at the same guy without saying a word. We all knew what to do. It was a hilarious moment that we still talk about to this day. If the rules said we violated the spirit of the game with that play, I'm pretty sure the game would not have been as fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
patrick mullen
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mimolette wrote:
I've seen several games or game scenarios that have a reminder of the goal and the alliance rules. This is something that rely purely on the player's will, as the game can't punish those that ingnore the rules, but in my experience it works well.

As soon as things are written in the rules, everybody usually follows them, and seeing them not respected is as rare as seeing a cheating player.
And that is what such a game would need: settle down all the players on the same foundations, to make sure that everybody will play the same game.
For example:

-a solo victory is always better that a team victory, just as a solo loss is always worse than a team loss, no matter what.
-alliances are made to be tied and broken. And yes, that means sometimes not predictably. No alliance shall be, in the spirit of when it was tied, unbreakable (although it might last for the whole game).
-no alliance/ agreement shall impact more than the length of the game. That means no pre-game agreement, and no agreement from one game to the other.
-The game is totally distinct from the real life. So, "no sex tonight if" and "let's avenge from Dan because he --- last week" are forbidden.



Your example guidelines are essentially meaningless. Games provide an experience, and people will react to that experience emotionally however they react, and then act according to how they feel. If the team victory feels better than the solo one, it matters not a bit that you have arbitrarily defined it as "better". If players are frustrated at the outcome of the game to the point that they will withold sex (or, like, eat the last of the ice cream or something) your commandment won't be enough to affect that behavior.

I'm all for including a paragraph somewhere on the spirit of the game that you intended, but if the way the players play doesn't bring about that spirit, there isn't a lot you can do about it. Besides working as hard as you can to make the mechanics themselves produce the experience you hope for.

And people who don't like the experience they have (whether it lines up with your intentions or not) are not going to play the game. And often, that's OK. Pandemic is one of the bestselling games of all time. Yet there are people who think cooperative games like Pandemic are fundamentally broken, whether that be the alpha gamer problem or their inherently solvable, puzzle-like nature. These people are clearly not Pandemic's target audience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Put together a quick prototype last night, but didn't balance the goals very well. The solo win was too easy to accomplish, so the group win was never really tested.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quentin N.
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
saluk wrote:
Mimolette wrote:
I've seen several games or game scenarios that have a reminder of the goal and the alliance rules. This is something that rely purely on the player's will, as the game can't punish those that ingnore the rules, but in my experience it works well.

As soon as things are written in the rules, everybody usually follows them, and seeing them not respected is as rare as seeing a cheating player.
And that is what such a game would need: settle down all the players on the same foundations, to make sure that everybody will play the same game.
For example:

-a solo victory is always better that a team victory, just as a solo loss is always worse than a team loss, no matter what.
-alliances are made to be tied and broken. And yes, that means sometimes not predictably. No alliance shall be, in the spirit of when it was tied, unbreakable (although it might last for the whole game).
-no alliance/ agreement shall impact more than the length of the game. That means no pre-game agreement, and no agreement from one game to the other.
-The game is totally distinct from the real life. So, "no sex tonight if" and "let's avenge from Dan because he --- last week" are forbidden.



Your example guidelines are essentially meaningless. Games provide an experience, and people will react to that experience emotionally however they react, and then act according to how they feel. If the team victory feels better than the solo one, it matters not a bit that you have arbitrarily defined it as "better". If players are frustrated at the outcome of the game to the point that they will withold sex (or, like, eat the last of the ice cream or something) your commandment won't be enough to affect that behavior.

I'm all for including a paragraph somewhere on the spirit of the game that you intended, but if the way the players play doesn't bring about that spirit, there isn't a lot you can do about it. Besides working as hard as you can to make the mechanics themselves produce the experience you hope for.

And people who don't like the experience they have (whether it lines up with your intentions or not) are not going to play the game. And often, that's OK. Pandemic is one of the bestselling games of all time. Yet there are people who think cooperative games like Pandemic are fundamentally broken, whether that be the alpha gamer problem or their inherently solvable, puzzle-like nature. These people are clearly not Pandemic's target audience.


Of course such guidelines have to be paired with mechanics that go the same way. And it is true that everybody will react differently to those rules.

But I don't think they are useless. I'll give you a few more examples:

As a young teenager, we sometimes played monopoly at home. I liked the game, but sadly for me my mother wasn't playing the game the same way as me. You all know that a game lasts long enough, but her hate for playing a game with loosers most of the time ruined our afternoon. As soon as someone got bankrupted, he would get a little amount of money to continue playing. Playing was meaningless, and it often endend by common decision to finish a game that would never ends.

Of course some won't really follow those implicit rules (sometimes for a good laugh), but it somehow gets them to play more or less the same way.

People will always play the game the way they want. But if you can't agree that your opponent won, if you flip the board when you loose, never finish the games you start, or reveal house rules mid game, good chances are that you will change of gaming partners often.

In fact I got the idea of those rules from the video game Subterfuge which is some kind of diplomacy and strategic games. Rules are quite extensive on that point, especially because playing out of the spirit of the game ruins the experience for everybody.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
patrick mullen
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I didn't say they are useless - I said they are meaningless. Maybe that is too strong... Ensuring players understand the spirit of the game may be a good idea! However, if your intentions aren't supported by the feeling of playing the game, players are going to react accordingly.

If I play the game, and we win in a team victory, and I have fun - I'm probably not going to be that sad to not get a solo victory, which according to your rules is the "right" thing to want from the game.

If I play the same game, and it ends in a solo victory, and no one has fun doing so, the group probably wont play that way again. Even if the rules say that is what we are supposed to want.

Health studies have tried to convince people that sugar or nicotine or insert-x-here is bad for you, but people eat/smoke/drink it anyway. Because it feels good. That same principle is going to be in a game.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is you can have rules for how you are supposed to play, but you can't have rules that specify what in the game people will like. It's too subjective. Maybe by specifying your philosophy, you do indicate to certain players that it is a game they would not enjoy.

What you could do, is offer everyone a cash prize. In a solo victory you win 100$, in a team victory, all of the winners win 5$. Suddenly, the victory conditions do matter and will have an effect on player psychology. Although I am not a psychologist so I'm not sure what kind of effect. It would be interesting to see The guy who looks like he's going to win convinces everyone to let him win and he will distribute the money, so everyone gets a larger payout than the 5$ team victory. But then you have left the magic circle and completely broken the game, so... I think I've lost my train of thought.

Anyway - if your game really WORKS, and it is more fun to win alone than win as a group, then that's what really matters. A guideline on what one's goals should be may be helpful; but probably wont fix a broken simulation, or players who just don't fit into what you are trying to accomplish.

I think your monopoly example makes my point A similar example I have, that doesn't actually break any rules, is playing Settlers in a 3 player game with a couple. The couple would always trade with each other but not with me. Even though you can only have one winner, my 2 opponents were essentially a team against me. Every time I play with them, one of them wins. So I stopped playing with them. Even if the rulebook had said something like "If you are a couple, make sure you also trade with the other players in the game. You cannot win as a team!" they would have played the same way.

Sorry to run on and on by the way. I tend to do that especially late at night lol. Subterfuge looks awesome also!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Web
msg tools
crinaya wrote:
Put together a quick prototype last night, but didn't balance the goals very well. The solo win was too easy to accomplish, so the group win was never really tested.

that s why i think you should focus with group win as main type of win. Then in the rare times, someone is lucky/good as hell and wins by himself, by some fortunate alliance/treason idk. makes it more hype.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Schiavo
United States
Frederick
MD
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
zetoooo wrote:
crinaya wrote:
Put together a quick prototype last night, but didn't balance the goals very well. The solo win was too easy to accomplish, so the group win was never really tested.

that s why i think you should focus with group win as main type of win. Then in the rare times, someone is lucky/good as hell and wins by himself, by some fortunate alliance/treason idk. makes it more hype.


This was a matter of pricing versus resources available, which can be balanced rather easily.

Making the group win (or solo loss, really) the main focus would lead to a defensive game of trying to cover yourself all the time, and I'm not sure how satisfying it would be. I'd rather try to balance both objectives, and keep it mostly competitive. The whole idea the spurred this design is to bring more competition into semi-co-op to satisfy the competitive minded, without totally removing the co-op.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.