Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Statistical help with card game prototype. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Old Gamer
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The 'suit-only' wild cards: what number do they have?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
old_gamer wrote:
The 'suit-only' wild cards: what number do they have?


Yeah, this question needs to be answered before any meaningful analysis can be done on the sets that require cards of a specific number (which is all of them.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
old_gamer wrote:
The 'suit-only' wild cards: what number do they have?

There is also the question of the number of suit-only wild cards; a reasonable count is one per rank, but that makes 10 total, and hence the total number of cards in the deck would be 120.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
old_gamer wrote:
The 'suit-only' wild cards: what number do they have?


Sorry,

The suit-only and number-only wild cards must be played in conjunction with another card of which the partial wild card is "modifying".

So a 5 of suit 'A' + a Suit-Only wild card would allow that card to become a 5 of any other suit.

Likewise, a 5 of suit 'A' + a Number-Only wild card could become any number of that card's current suit 'A'.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robigo wrote:
old_gamer wrote:
The 'suit-only' wild cards: what number do they have?

There is also the question of the number of suit-only wild cards; a reasonable count is one per rank, but that makes 10 total, and hence the total number of cards in the deck would be 120.


Please see my previous reply about the Suit-Only wild cards borrowing the number from a second card that it is played with as a modifier. Therefore, I think that in this way a single Suit-Only wild card could be used to represent any number 1-10 according to the card it is played with. Hopefully this way I can just include one Full Wild Card and one Suit-Only Wild Card and one Number-Only Wild Card per each of the 5 suits for a total of 15 wild cards per deck of 100 cards. This may prove to be too many and I may need to cut them down, but I should let play-testing tell me which way to go. I should also say that the wild cards will all look identical and be suit-less/number-less in designation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It might be clearer if I share some of the theme and play. Each suit is a different cryptid creature (Sasquatch, Chupacabra, etc...) of which players/cryptid hunters try to collect the highest ranking sets of evidence to prove their existence (case files). Lay down a set of evidence and you get to draft a new team member which brings special abilities. Partial wild cards simply allow a player to modify a card in their hand/set. The full wild card may be called a Chimera, the partial wild cards may be called, Shapeshifter (suit=wild) and Genetic Mutant (number=wild)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm a bit confused by your "all sets must be the same suit" requirement. That's definitely possible for pairs, and definitely impossible for 3 of a kinds (unless you're requiring the use of wilds?)

Further, by saying that the "same suit" requirement does not apply to "sequences of pairs", it seems like the only thing this rule applies to is number 6 - the straight.

Can you clarify this for me?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
manydills wrote:
I'm a bit confused by your "all sets must be the same suit" requirement. That's definitely possible for pairs, and definitely impossible for 3 of a kinds (unless you're requiring the use of wilds?)

Further, by saying that the "same suit" requirement does not apply to "sequences of pairs", it seems like the only thing this rule applies to is number 6 - the straight.

Can you clarify this for me?


As I envision it now:

Suits = Sasquatch, Chupacabra, Waheela, Thunderbird and Champ.

The goal would be to collect the highest ranking set within one ore more suits/creatures and score according to that rank. Thematically, this relates to evidence collected to prove the existence of that cryptid/creature. So in this context mixing creatures/suits within a set should probably not be allowed (evidence/card for Sasquatch should not apply/improve the quality evidence of a Chupacabra (unless a partial wild is attached)...a bigfoot footage should not affect how proven/dis-proven Loch Ness Monster is.

Given that each suit/creature has cards 1-10, 2 of each number, plus there are 3 wild cards (these are like jokers in that they have no suit or number. The partial wilds are used to modify a regular card's number or suit, as they are played bundled together. So you end up with 15 suit-less and number-less wild cards that can be applied to create sets.
So in the suit of Sasquatch, a player could play a case file of evidence as a 3 ofakind with 2 cards of "Sasquatch 6", and a wild to as the third "6"....this wild card could be a full wild, a "Sasquatch 9" modified to be a "Sasquatch 6" with the Numbers-Only Wild card, or "Chupacabra 6" modified to be a "Sasquatch 6" with a Suit-Only wild card.

Same would apply to the other sets. Wilds are very necessary to allow the completion of many of the sets or even allow some to be possible. A sequence of pairs might be 2,2,3,3,4,4 of Sasquatch. Wild cards only make it easier to form this...2,2,3,(3 of Chupacabra modified to a 3 of Sasquatch with Suit-Only wild card),4,(7 of Sasquatch modified to a 4 with Numbers-Only wild card).

I can upload a pdf of the full rules de jour if that might be helpful.

In the short-term I am trying to confirm the proper ordering of the possible sets, many of which are only possible with wilds applied liberally...assuming there are no major design flaws that are impossible.

Thanks again to everyone for taking a look at this.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, this makes sense to me, although you use a sequence of pairs in your example - are you still not requiring sequences of pairs to be the same suit? Or are you? Or do the cards of the pairs in the sequence have to be the same suit, while the different pairs do not? Or have you simply changed the rule?

Finally, is it true that you're envisioning that the only way to make a 4 of a kind (of the same suit, which is what you're telling me) is, for example, both Sasquatch 4s, then a Sasquatch 9 modded to a 4, and a Chupacabra 4 modded to a Sasquatch. (or something like that?) It seems pretty restrictive, although not terribly so. I think I have enough information to start working on the probabilities once I have the answers to these questions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, everything would be of the same suit...2,2,3,3,4,4 each being a Sasquatch, or 2,wild,3,3,4,wild...or 2,w,3,w,4,w, etc... The only time a differently suited card would be in a set is when that card has been paired with a wild that changes that card's suit to the same as the rest of the set. I am hoping that with 5 full wilds and 10 partial wilds in a 115 card deck, the same-suit restriction may be eased up a bit, even with 2 copies of any given number card of a suit.

Yes, 4 ofakind would require at least two wilds, a sequence of 3 ofakinds would require at least two wilds, a sequence of 4 ofakinds would need at least 4 wilds. I went back and added to the original post how many wilds (at least) would be required for some of the sets that would require them.

I even contemplated making the wilds of different color/design than the rest of the deck so who has what wilds and where there are in the deck not so hidden knowledge.

I'll try to reply with the full rules download file if I can figure out how.

Thanks for your time and help.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://sdrv.ms/MnRMub

This is a link to the Rules PDF.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Pelikan
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the theme. I think I like the wild cards and the modifiers (don't call the modifiers wild cards, they are not wild, they just modify other cards). At first glance, the rank system seems overly complicated for what it is. If you want to sort sets by difficulty, with runs (straights) of variable length, you would probably need to split them into even more groups (a straight 1-10 is definitely more difficult than two consecutive pairs. 4 consecutive pairs is most likely more difficult than two consecutive triples, ...).

What if you build 'chains of evidence', consisting of three or more connected cards (e.g. 2,3,4 or 6,6,7,8,8,8). In the chain, each singleton would score 1P, each pair 5P, each triple 10P and each quartuple 20P. So 2,3,4 would weigh in at 1+1+1=3P, whereas 6,6,7,8,8,8 would be worth 5+1+10=16P.

Rather than having separate team member cards, special powers could be on the cryptid cards. Then expansions could add more than just new artwork. Maybe you can only uses special powers of doubles, or of the highest card in a chain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Hoag
United States
Asheville
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Ludological Labs
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Puschl wrote:
I like the theme. I think I like the wild cards and the modifiers (don't call the modifiers wild cards, they are not wild, they just modify other cards). At first glance, the rank system seems overly complicated for what it is. If you want to sort sets by difficulty, with runs (straights) of variable length, you would probably need to split them into even more groups (a straight 1-10 is definitely more difficult than two consecutive pairs. 4 consecutive pairs is most likely more difficult than two consecutive triples, ...).

What if you build 'chains of evidence', consisting of three or more connected cards (e.g. 2,3,4 or 6,6,7,8,8,8). In the chain, each singleton would score 1P, each pair 5P, each triple 10P and each quartuple 20P. So 2,3,4 would weigh in at 1+1+1=3P, whereas 6,6,7,8,8,8 would be worth 5+1+10=16P.

Rather than having separate team member cards, special powers could be on the cryptid cards. Then expansions could add more than just new artwork. Maybe you can only uses special powers of doubles, or of the highest card in a chain.


Very interesting and certainly simpler, maybe lighter, too, as far as the sets/chain creation is concerned. I'll need to read this a few times more and try it out with my test deck. Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
 
 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.