Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Carcassonne» Forums » Variants

Subject: Carcassone Communis rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Luis Patricio
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
Hi all,

I just finished writing the first draft of a carcassonne variant. I only playtested it alone to get a feel of game dynamics so it still needs some tuning but I was anxious to hear other opinions about it.

Here's the link:
http://pequenopasso.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/carcas...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This sounds insane, and potentially quite interesting. You have some very unique ideas on scoring shared features. It's a bit difficult to work out exactly what the goal of the game is and how the individual elements relate to it [your text is very dense], which makes it difficult to comment on exactly how interesting the scoring variants are. From a cursory view, I'm worried that many of the decisions and the individual scores don't actually matter.

For instance, what is the point of the dividing up of individual scores for roads? From how it reads to me, as long as there is at least 1 meeple on the completed road for every 3 tiles in the road, the collective points and max points will increase by the same amount and the stability ratio will remain at 1. It doesn't seem to matter how the first player on the road divides up the points [on that note... how in the world do you keep track of this at all?].

Is there some kind of alternative best individual score / individual victory condition that players can compete for? If there is, why would a player ever split up road points? If there isn't, why does it matter that a player can split up road points? It doesn't affect the collective score, does it? Maybe you should have some rule that takes into account variance / range between individual scores at the end of the game in calculating the "stability" level?

Your city scoring for collective points doesn't seem to relate, with perfect cooperative performance, as cleanly / directly to the stability level ratio as does the road scoring. You've set up a clear goal with roads for the players: Have at least one meeple for every 3 tile. You can judge this with complete accuracy. Figuring out what the "perfect" goal is for city scoring isn't as easy / clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to depend on player cooperation at all.

In a 4-player game, for instance, the players will be judged for each city at a rate of 3 points per tile. A 5-tile city, for instance, will be assessed as having a "max" value of 15. The basic score [barring shields... and why aren't they included in "max points"?] for such a city will be 10 points. If only one player has only one meeple in the city, they can't earn collective points high enough to meet the demanded max value and keep the stability level up.

I suppose that makes sense enough; players are supposed to cooperate in building / owning the cities. Let's say that there were two meeples in the city then. Each would control 5 of the 10 points, but if they each invested all 5 of their points, the collective points would move up by 20! That's more than the "max" value, so the stability level would actually be a ratio HIGHER than 1. That doesn't seem to make any sense, or to be your goal.

I'm also not sure that the game theory / expected value of city scoring would work out.

You've got some really clever ideas here, but they need some mathematical tweaking.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Patricio
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
your text is very dense


I'm brazilian and I was afraid that my text could be too childish or incomprehensible, maybe I overdid it a little.

NateStraight wrote:
I'm worried that many of the decisions and the individual scores don't actually matter.


You are right, the individual score doesn't influence the outcome. But I believe people would try to get as much individual points as possible just for the sake of it... Well, it needs playtesting. Anyhow, you showed me I should think about a way for the individual score affect the collective.

NateStraight wrote:
on that note... how in the world do you keep track of this at all?


I didn't understand the question, "this" what? The individual score is recorded as in the basic game. The collective score only needs an extra meeple on the scoreboard. And the stability level is calculated only once at the end of the game.

NateStraight wrote:
Maybe you should have some rule that takes into account variance / range between individual scores


Noted! That seems to be a really interesting idea. I will work on that.

NateStraight wrote:
Figuring out what the "perfect" goal is for city scoring isn't as easy / clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to depend on player cooperation at all.


I have to correct the statement:
The closest to one the better >>>>> The higher the better

So if all knights invest, the collective points are higher.

I just didn't figure out a simple way to calculate the max points possibility for a given city. I didn't want it to be too complex. So I created a rule where the ratio can be higher than 1 (I don't think this is a big problem... or is it?).

Also, I have to find a better term for "Stability Level" and "Max Points".

NateStraight wrote:
barring shields... and why aren't they included in "max points"?


I forgot.

NateStraight wrote:
You've got some really clever ideas here, but they need some mathematical tweaking.


I am pretty aware of that (the "lack-of-math" part). So far the rules I've created are 90% instinct and 10% reason. I'd love to read more about mechanics and statistics related to game design to create more conscious rules. I could use some theoretical knowledge here, if you have any reading suggestion please let me know.

Thanks a lot for the input.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
luispatricio wrote:
NateStraight wrote:
your text is very dense


I'm brazilian and I was afraid that my text could be too childish or incomprehensible, maybe I overdid it a little.


On the contrary, it was pretty well written, just incredibly technical and concise.

Quote:
NateStraight wrote:
I'm worried that many of the decisions and the individual scores don't actually matter.


You are right, the individual score doesn't influence the outcome. But I believe people would try to get as much individual points as possible just for the sake of it... Well, it needs playtesting.


I suppose this is a "spirit of the game" sort of thing... I can't see anyone caring about individual scores unless they are taken into account at the end of the game somehow.

You seem to just be approaching this as a "sandbox" for players to play around in, which is fine, but quite different from what I would expect from a coop with individual scores.

Quote:
NateStraight wrote:
on that note... how in the world do you keep track of this at all?


I didn't understand the question, "this" what?


"This" being who was the "first guardian" on the road... are you just supposed to remember who placed their meeple on the road first and who joined in later?

Quote:
NateStraight wrote:
Figuring out what the "perfect" goal is for city scoring isn't as easy / clear. In fact, it doesn't seem to depend on player cooperation at all.


I have to correct the statement:
The closest to one the better >>>>> The higher the better


I kind of liked the idea of shooting for a percentage of a "perfect score" [i.e. a ratio approaching 1] as it provides a metric to judge your performance across multiple games that play out vastly differently in the number and types of features that get made.

Making the goal "as high as possible" will tend to push players toward completion of certain types of features [those where it's easiest to score points in your new system] rather than toward the more interesting goal of reaching perfect cooperative efficiency.

Quote:
I just didn't figure out a simple way to calculate the max points possibility for a given city. I didn't want it to be too complex. So I created a rule where the ratio can be higher than 1 (I don't think this is a big problem... or is it?).


It depends on what your method of scoring the game will be, I suppose.

Like I said, I think the idea about approaching a perfect 100% score is neat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Patricio
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
You seem to just be approaching this as a "sandbox" for players to play around in, which is fine, but quite different from what I would expect from a coop with individual scores.


I'm on it. I am thinking two possibilities:
1. Leave the individual and collective scores as they are. And the final goal may be either getting the highest individual score or work around the collective. Each player chooses whatever he finds best. I like the idea of a game being cooperative only if you want it to be. Depending on who the players are you can have very different outcomes. Even one person may adopt very different strategies according to his partners (or rivals)

2. Harness the individual to the collective score. Higher individual score affect positively the collective (so players will try to make more individual points) but big diferences between the highest individual score and the lowest one affect negatively the collective (so, although each player want points for himself, they'll have to spare some at some point). Need to work out the details though...

NateStraight wrote:
"This" being who was the "first guardian" on the road... are you just supposed to remember who placed their meeple on the road first and who joined in later?


Hmmm... playing alone I didn't notice that problem. Sure !! It may be hard to keep track with lots of roads and players. Maybe put the meeple laying down (or sideways, since the farmers are already laying down).

NateStraight wrote:
I kind of liked the idea of shooting for a percentage of a "perfect score" [i.e. a ratio approaching 1]


I'll reevaluate the max point for cities. I think I'll have to change the scoring system for cities as well in order to make calculations simpler.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Patricio
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
[Update]
Distribution phase - starting from the first knight deployed and proceeding in clockwise order, each knight get one point from the city decreasing the city value by 1 until it reaches zero.

Following this new rule, the example of a 10-points city with three knights will have the following distribution:
Knight A = 4points
Knight B = 3points
Knight C = 3points

Max points for a completed city - (city tiles + pennants) X 2 X (lowest between number of players or city tiles)
-----
I believe those updates solve the major problems. I will try to playtest it this weekend to see how it works out. New version available with these and other small fixes:
http://pequenopasso.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/carcas...

thanks
 
 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.