Testing "new" region layout

Anything related to dev. & that doesn't fit in below categories.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:
Testing "new" region layout

Post by snowdrop » Wed Apr 20, 2016 21:48

http://i.imgur.com/WjZUPVp.png

...trying to find some way to create a region-template that makes it differ from all the rest, while still keeping it coherent. Not sure about this one... The fat number = hp. No super or subtype is written since it's a unique template layout, just like the creature one.
Mattaiyah
developer
Posts:74
Joined:Wed Apr 25, 2012 17:46

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by Mattaiyah » Thu Apr 21, 2016 05:55

I'd add a subtype directly below the name so that we can have "if you control [type] region" effects.

Try closing off the top. Make it like the bottom is on other cards, but without the line that overlaps on the black border.

As a side note, I hate that since I've become better at Inkscape, I can see all the visual glitches now.
ngoeminne
Posts:324
Joined:Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by ngoeminne » Fri Apr 22, 2016 14:59

Hello snowdrop,

I'd also add the subtype there.
For defense strength I'd use the shield-logo, so it's consistent.
The faction's logo could just stay where it is now, top right.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by snowdrop » Fri Apr 22, 2016 21:20

http://i.imgur.com/NUKBklv.png

..new one with heart containign the HP instead of the logo. Logo + number in it is consistently used for showing cost. Now, one could argue that it's easy for the players to re-learn what logo and number means when the logo and number is in other position + on a card with different layout altogether. I don't think that would cause issues. It is just not as apparent or intuitive as it should be.

This is more so, I think. Heart-container is different in looks from armor on creatures, since it also differs in function (all creatures have 1 hp and they die if DEF gets penetrated, while regions have real HP that are deducted over turns).

About subtypes of regions: It's possible, space is there more or less. I just don't think it's needed in ORC since only one region will be active at any given time per player. Designing around region-matching-abilities then won't matter much. Also, since I think that regions come in in pre-determined "packs" in orc that also negates the use of subtypes of them, somewhat. But not to sure about this, and isn't an issue either way I think.
Mattaiyah
developer
Posts:74
Joined:Wed Apr 25, 2012 17:46

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by Mattaiyah » Fri Apr 22, 2016 23:47

This looks nice. I like that the right side of the heart is distorted.

Anyways, for the top, make it so that the size of the black area is the same as size as the area between left card edge and left gold border.
Lynxx
Posts:12
Joined:Tue Feb 09, 2016 21:30

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by Lynxx » Sat Apr 23, 2016 05:07

this looks like everything is backwards...
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by snowdrop » Sat Apr 23, 2016 13:48

http://i.imgur.com/wh7v1Na.jpg

Finished. I'll go with this layout for ORC until I see something better done, and won't waste much more effort on it currently.

What factions can be played or not with a region pile (called "chapter") is always constant and never varies in ORC. It is decided when you build your deck and chapter. These cards have the text "gaian" in footer, meaning all regions within the same chapter will always support gaian cards to be played.

Summed up: These 3 cards shown as example here are a complete chapter, their total starting HP is 20, and whatever region happens to be active the player is allowed to play gaia, and gaia only (with the exception for neutral cards = factionless ones).

In addition, the footer holds chapter relevant id-info: For example: 1.2A translates into:

1. = This card can only be placed in the chapter called "1", and no other chapters, ever.
.2 = This card can only be placed as second from the top down in the chapter it belongs to.
A = This card is a a unique alternative called A for the given position. So a player gets to choose what card he puts second in his chapter, and his choices are between the cards 2A, 2B, 2C et.c. The same goes for all other positions of course.

This way ORC uses somewhat predetermined and controlled handling of regions, game flow, and connection to faction and balancing, while still opening up design space to invite the player for some degree of customization directly of a given chapter (beyond that he can customize the 60 card deck anyhow). So basically a player builds a deck, chooses which chapter he wants to play that with (or the other way around) and slightly customzies the chapter.





this looks like everything is backwards...
Yeah, indeed, especially if you compare with the Event-template, I can understand your remark. It is a feature and also the intention for me - to make the Region template possible to spot directly by it's layout/appearance. One way of doing it, somewhat ok perhaps, is how I just did it.
ngoeminne
Posts:324
Joined:Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by ngoeminne » Sat Apr 23, 2016 15:18

Hey snowdrop,

They look great. I would keep the shield as toughness dough, to make it consistent with the other cards.
1. = This card can only be placed in the chapter called "1", and no other chapters, ever.
.2 = This card can only be placed as second from the top down in the chapter it belongs to.
A = This card is a a unique alternative called A for the given position. So a player gets to choose what card he puts second in his chapter, and his choices are between the cards 2A, 2B, 2C et.c. The same goes for all other positions of course.
Is the chapter stuff new? I can't make any sens out of it.
Are you trying to mold the gameplay in something like an RPG with different places?
(The Kings Quest's series come in mind)

Doesn't this complicate things to much, when deckbuilding, when playing?
What am I allowed to play, what am I allowed to put in my deck, when will it be playable.
It's no where clear, so any additional info, or simplification could help.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by snowdrop » Sun Apr 24, 2016 17:12

ngoeminne wrote:Hey snowdrop,

They look great. I would keep the shield as toughness dough, to make it consistent with the other cards.
Could change it to that, but it wouldn't be consistent: HP is one thing, armor is another, that's why it would risk being misguiding. On regions the dealt damage stack and lower HP between turns, accumulating damage. On creatures the HP is always just 1 (technically not even that) and the DEF value inside armor container is something that replenishes automatically in between turns if the creature survives. One can defend, other can't. The only thing the both variables have in common is that x dies if variable = 0.

Is the chapter stuff new? I can't make any sens out of it.
The player builds a deck, shuffles it, and brings it to the table. He also has a "region pile" that has a couple of regions in it, in a given order, according to what is determined by design. Instead of using the word region pile I would prefer something else. "Chapter" is one suggestion, just a name on the "region pile", but also maybe a fitting one as there is a sense of movement and progression when you fight in one region and then move onto a battle somewhere else, having history unfold, closing the end in one way or the other. Naming here isn't important right now to me, if it's called chapter or something else, but I know it won't be called "region pile" and preferably not "region deck" either.

http://i.imgur.com/wh7v1Na.jpg

The chapter I showed above have only 3 regions in it, each region being only one card. There isn't aything new about it I think, compared to what it says in ORC beyond that you get to draw cards when you lose a region equal to hte "ex loyalty" points on it, but my thoughts behind it and how I imagine composition of it could work out isn't described in ORC.

It works as follows:

Each card takes up one "slot/position" in the chapter. Each of the 3 cards can also only be ordered in a pre-designed order. The order they must be put in the chapter is written on them (footer, second number after the dot) So the card that can be placed in second place in the chapter is the card with the number x.2 in it. If one wants to release expansions to an already existing chapter by releasing new cards and want to offer the player a way to customize it then one could release region cards 2B, 2C etc.... Giving the player a total of 3 cards (1.2A, 1.2B, 1.2C) of which he may select only one single card 1.2x) to put in the chapter.

ways to do chapter composition
Compared to ARC this is more restrictive and have more board/eurogame influence over the handling of regions, but only when it comes to the regions - 3 cards in ORC. I am not sure if I want it to be so restricted and pre-built, or if I want to open it up somewhat. There are these variants:

A) As suggested - designer decides 1) which region card can go into same pile with other region cards 2) the designer decides what order they must go in 3) the player can customize it slightly

B) Instead of that I probably opt for 1) any region card can be put with any other region card in same pile but 2) designer decides their order as it already is 3) customization is much bigger for player.

C) What I think you kind of have in ARC - no restrictions, people put whatever however.

As for playtesting in a pre-constructed deck, this doesn't matter much. A) seems interesting for/while playtesting purposes. I believe I find it too restrictive and replayability and viable deck build(s) lowered to shit with A) as a solution though. Leaning towards b & c... Only main argument for B) and designer being able to control the position of a card in the chapter is that it actually lets us influence flow a lot and use it for balancing purposes also. It's appealing to me currently. Not sure it will be later on.

balanced decks - factions
In any case, every region card always tells the player what faction cards he may play, which does away with the need for artificial rules in ORC handling that when composing deck and with that also the old loyalty points idea. The need for currency as a resources is also gone if regions regulate that.

balanced chapters
When building a chapter and choosing regions there may be these values that will balance it out:

(0. What card can go in what slot, if this applies and designers ordering of them is included)

1. What factions does the region support?

2. How many HP does the region add to the chapters total HP pool? (Works like army points in some games, you can't have regions in your deck that together make up for more than 20 HP when starting the game)

...so, those 2-3, combined with what you want to do with your fully custom made deck and the interaction between deck and chapter, will create relations that should provide some much needed balancing and considerations by the player.

What am I allowed to play, what am I allowed to put in my deck, when will it be playable.
Yes, what you are allowed to play with a given region is indeed determined by design. That is however something the player chooses - he made the choice to include a given region, that only supports said factions, so, I that makes it the players will and a probably a reason behind it.

As originally suggested it also heavily regulates what you can put in the chapter, but I'm leaning away from that as too restrictive and lowering replaybility + viable deck compositions.
User avatar
Peter
Posts:96
Joined:Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location:Germany

Re: Testing "new" region layout

Post by Peter » Sun Apr 24, 2016 17:20

@Snowdrop:

I'm not sure, but perhaps the cost of Forest II and III should be X?
Kind regards and happy coding :)
Post Reply