Rage-design: A Less Shitty Version of Impulse

#81

Aaaaaaand new print-and-play assets are done:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tocRnBb806FqOAjSuIE7D6-Vo199FZGD/view?usp=sharing

Followed @Apreche’s suggestion to make information disappear when you don’t need it - so you have the gem when it’s a Mineral, the action name when it’s in the Plan, and the Tech text when it’s a Tech. I think I like that a lot, and it sort of reflects more streamlined gameplay.

Homeworlds are both a starting action (size 1 any color) AND a bonus after they get developed. Figured I might as well make it matter down the road.

I want to figure out how to make the action name colorblind friendly without duplicating other information. I tried alternate fonts but ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that got messy fast.

I have a feeling this is not a 2-player game. Probably 3 - 6. We’ll see what happens.

2 Likes

#82

It’s almost impossible to have a good political game with less than 3-4 players.

This was a great suggestion and I’m glad you’re implementing it. The more you can minimize information overload, the more you can speed up player decisions and turns overall.

0 Likes

#83

It’s literally impossible to have a political game with less than 3 players.

2 Likes

#84

Now I’m thinking about this… you could approximate (or achieve?) the Characteristics of Games definition of politics by making a 2p game where both players win or lose independently. Or maybe not… it’s been a while since I opened that book.

0 Likes

#85

It wouldn’t be an orthogame in this case. Orthogames require an outcome where players are ranked, and are seeking the highest rank.

4 Likes

#86

If you have a two player game where both players can win or lose independently, isn’t that just two solitaire games that just happen to be next to each other?

Also, I don’t see how that can become political. Two players in the vote who wins game are always going to vote for themselves. Without at least a third party, no player is ever in the position to to take any action that favors one opposing player more than another.

I think the best that can be done is to create some number of NPCs (or even digital AI) that have the possibility of winning. Thus the game is still mathematically political even though only two of the players have a political will.

0 Likes

#87

Maybe in a tournament structure, where victory in one match affects seeding in subsequent matches?

Let’s say we’re in a double-elimination tournament, and I know that if I lose, this guy I can’t beat will go on to play against someone who’s better than me, and they will lose that match. If I choose to eat it so that guy loses in the next round, and then I work through the loser’s bracket back to where I was before, then I haven’t lost much and I’ve stuck it to the guy I couldn’t beat.

But like Rym said, that’s not really an orthogame. Very meta.

0 Likes

#88

In that case, the tournament itself is the game, which ranks two or more players. The tournament is a political orthogame unless it only has two players or prevents players actions from affecting the ranking of other players.

2 Likes

#89

Solid point.

I’m planning to toy around with some kind of variation that makes a 2-player game workable. I wonder about some kind of parallel intelligence, instead of an independent AI thingI? Like, in a two-player game, you have some other faction you manipulate based on your actions? I dunno, I’ll poke and brainstorm.

1 Like

#90

Now you’re making two different games that just happen to share a lot of pieces.

2 Likes

#91

Sure, this is an exercise in whether or not it’s doable, not an effort to make it part of this design. More like “can I make it work” than “if I do this I can say it’s a 2-player game.”

Besides, political fuckery is straight up more fun with more humans, so I’m only going to get so much out of making it two-player. I’m kind of thinking more along the lines of having the Orions at the center of the galaxy, and they antagonize the other two players.

0 Likes

#92

Obviously you should work on what you want, but it might be more efficient to work on the general game and then work out how you could play it with 2 players than try to do both at the same time. Just my $.02

1 Like

#93

So anyway I kind of rolled with this idea, as a way to explore some of the mechanics I’m playing with, and wound up coming up with a different game. Totally unplaytested of course, but an interesting exercise if nothing else. Got me thinking about other ways to approach the core idea.

Quorum and Quasars

1 Like