[Icehouse] Winter 2008 IGDC feedback

[Jorge Arroyo]

Hi,

  I'm glad you liked Virus Fight. It was indeed inspired by Core Wars, and
being a hobbyist programmer myself, it's a theme I really enjoy. I'd really
appreciate it if you'd post your comments to the wiki and bgg page. Thanks
for the feeback.

  This post reminds me that I have to put my thoughts about the games I
played in written form. Next time, I'll be writing those right after playing
the games, because after the results come out it's more difficult to
remember exactly what my thoughts were... still. I hope to do it sooner than
later....

  Cheers,

-Jorge



On 3/20/08, Doug Orleans <dougorleans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, I finally got around to writing up my thoughts about the games
> in the most recent IGDC.  I posted the write-up to Jason McIntosh's
> Gameshelf weblog (along with some general information about the
> competition, since the audience is presumably not familiar with
> Icehouse or this community), but I'm copying it here to better
> facilitate discussion.
>
>
> http://gameshelf.jmac.org/2008/03/the-icehouse-game-design-competition.html
>
> One of the main goals of the competition was to encourage people to
> give feedback to game designers about their games. To that end, I am
> going to post my thoughts here about the games in the Winter 2008
> competition. I did manage to play all 8 games, but most of them only
> once, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'll discuss them in
> the same order I ranked them on my ballot, from best to worst, along
> with my ratings on the Boardgamegeek.com 10-point scale [1] (10 being
> "outstanding", 1 being "clearly broken").
>
> Virus Fight - 8. The old programming game Core War [2] involves
> writing computer programs that run in a shared memory space and attack
> each other by overwriting each other's code. Translating this idea to
> a turn-based strategy board game turns out to work surprisingly well!
> Each pyramid represents an instruction based on its color: yellow is
> "move", green is "write", blue is "jump", and red is "erase". Each
> player has a program counter, a small pyramid that moves around the
> board executing instructions one at a time. Unlike Core War, which is
> completely deterministic after the initial selection of programs, in
> Virus Fight the players have choices of how to execute the current
> instruction; for example, a "write" instruction lets the current
> player place any spare instruction onto any empty square. A player can
> also choose where to move his program counter after executing an
> instruction, using the two-dimensional nature of the board instead of
> the linear memory model of Core War. Despite these differences, much
> of the spirit of Core War is still here: players' programs start out
> in separate regions of the board, but can move and expand and merge
> with each other, allowing players to invade each other by moving their
> program counters into each other's programs, and the "erase"
> instruction allows players to remove certain instructions from the
> board, reducing the other players' options. The goal is to force all
> your opponents' programs to die by having nowhere to move their
> program counters.
>
> Aside from the initial simultaneous selection of programs, there is no
> element of chance in Virus Fight, and when played as a two-player game
> (which I think is the best way to play, in order to avoid the
> negotiation and king-making that can occur in multi-player games with
> no chance) this is a pure abstract strategy game akin to chess or
> go. I can appreciate most pure strategy games for their elegant
> mechanics, but in general I don't actually enjoy playing them---I
> don't have the patience to mentally search the game tree looking for
> the optimal move. For some reason, though, I really enjoy playing
> Virus Fight. Maybe it's because it's quite difficult to look more than
> a couple moves ahead, due to the way the turn order can change based
> on the relative sizes of the pyramids currently under the program
> counters, so you have to just play by intuition most of the time. Or
> maybe it's just that, as a programmer by vocation and avocation, the
> theme is a natural fit for me. In any case, the game works well, both
> as a well-balanced strategy game and in capturing the essence of Core
> War, and for me it was clearly the best game of the
> competition. Sadly, it did not fare well in the voting, perhaps due to
> its somewhat intimidatingly complex rules (which are nonetheless quite
> elegant, in my opinion). But if you like pure abstract strategy games,
> or programming, give it a try.
>
> WreckTangle - 5. It's very difficult to design a simple abstract board
> game that has an element of chance without the chance element
> overwhelming the strategy. Backgammon is the canonical example of this
> kind of game, and I think it succeeds in part because the chance
> element only serves to randomly restrict your options at the beginning
> of your turn rather than to randomly determine if you succeed or fail
> after performing some game action (like in most wargames). (This
> distinction is sometimes referred to as "situational luck"
> vs. "resolution luck"; I can't find a citation for who came up with
> these terms, but I think I first saw them in The Games Journal [3].)
> WreckTangle uses the same idea: on your turn, roll the die (a
> Treehouse die), then make two moves, one of which is partially
> determined by the die roll; for example, "dig" lets you move a
> pyramid, either yours or an opponent's, one space diagonally away from
> its home row, and this can be done either before or after you move one
> of your own pyramids. This system works out pretty well: you still
> have a wealth of options on your turn, but sometimes you have to play
> the odds and hope that the next player's roll doesn't let him ruin
> you. This sort of blurs the distinction between the two kinds of luck,
> however, since these situations can feel more like you're randomly
> succeeding or failing, especially because, unlike in backgammon, your
> captured pieces are permanently removed from the game. And a single
> capturing move (by forming a rectangle---of any size---with four of
> your pyramids) can capture multiple pyramids, so this can be pretty
> drastic. Still, I liked the basic idea of WreckTangle, and maybe with
> some sort of tweak to reduce the potential for drastic swings of fate
> this could become a solid game.
>
> Hunt - 5. Hunt involves moving a stack of pyramids around a maze of
> dangerous obstacles, trying to stay alive while positioning the
> obstacles to kill your opponents' stacks. This game is in the same
> general class as Wrecktangle, and most of what I wrote about that game
> applies to Hunt as well---Hunt has slightly less chance of a drastic
> swing of fate, because sometimes the damage to your stack can be
> healed, but it also has slightly more of the feel of resolution luck:
> sometimes your die roll dictates that your stack immediately take
> damage because you can't make the required move. Fortunately, your
> stack is immune to damage caused by obstacle pyramids of the same
> color as the top pyramid in your stack; each time do you take damage,
> though, you remove the top pyramid of your stack, which means you
> become immune to a different set of obstacles. There are also ways in
> which the order of the pyramids in your stack can change, which also
> changes your immunity. This is a clever mechanism, leading to some
> tactical positioning options, but you still don't have quite enough
> control over the element of chance to implement any kind of long-term
> (or even medium-term) strategy. The rules also seem to be a bit more
> convoluted than they need to be, which is why I decided to rank this
> slightly lower than WreckTangle.
>
> Martian 12s - 5. A push-your-luck gambling game, like Blackjack with a
> few twists: there are essentially three different "decks", and you can
> choose which one to draw from; also, "card"-counting is not
> discouraged! This game is simple and to the point, and it works
> perfectly well for what it is, but it just doesn't excite me at
> all. I'm not a big fan of push-your-luck games, but that isn't really
> my problem with Martian 12s; it seems like there isn't much else going
> on besides calculating the odds and deciding the appropriate level of
> risk to take. This turned out to be the winner of the competition,
> which I'm okay with---I would have preferred Virus Fight, but Martian
> 12s is a solid game that works as intended, and that's really the main
> goal of game design, isn't it?
>
> Timelock - 3. Here we start getting into the games that had serious
> problems. Timelock is structurally quite similar to backgammon: your
> dice roll determines how far you can move your pieces towards the
> goal, and you can sometimes interfere with your opponent's
> progress. The problem is granularity: in backgammon, rolling high
> numbers is generally better, since you can make further progress
> towards your goal, but sometimes you want a specific smaller number so
> that you can land on a particular spot; in Timelock, however, rolling
> higher numers is always better, and for the most part it's simply a
> matter of who rolls the highest total over the course of the
> game. There are some slightly non-linear decisions about whether to
> make progress towards your goal or to block (or undo) your opponent's
> progress, and some Treehouse die results are better in some situations
> than others. But most of these decisions are obvious, and there's
> really not enough of this non-linearity to matter, so it pretty much
> boils down to a dice-rolling contest.
>
> Timberland - 3. This hybrid of Treehouse and Volcano seemed like it
> had promise, but turns out to be overwhelmingly random---even moreso
> than Treehouse, which aims to be the Fluxx of Icehouse games. Volcano
> is a Nim [4]-style game, where all the pieces on the board are shared
> between the players and you're trying to arrange for the best captures
> to be available on your turn. But when you add the randomness of
> rolling two Treehouse dice on each turn, it's pretty much impossible
> to arrange a configuration that will have any chance of surviving
> until your turn, even in a 2-player game; it's difficult just to
> minimize the next player's chances of making a capture on his turn,
> even if your options weren't restricted by what you rolled. In theory,
> I like the idea of adding an element of chance to Volcano, but this
> isn't the way to do it.
>
> Chicken Run - 2. This game is similar to Timelock (and backgammon),
> but it has the same problem: higher rolls are always better. In fact,
> you only get to move at all if you roll higher than your opponent,
> which makes it boil down to a series of dice-offs, rather like
> War [5]. The only interaction comes from moving neutral pyramids to
> block your opponent or unblock yourself, but they can only be moved if
> both players roll the same number, which only happens one sixth of the
> time on average. This means they play a very small part in the game,
> and in fact the first time I played I think we only got matching rolls
> once before the game was over. I won't go so far as to say this game
> is broken, but it would need some significant changes before it would
> really work.
>
> Martian Gunslinger - 2. There are some interesting ideas in here, sort
> of a resource management/exploration/dueling card game with an
> intricate Western theme (...on Mars). The problem, once again, is the
> overwhelming amount of luck, especially resolution luck: when you
> "attempt a plotpoint", you draw two cards, and you succeed only if the
> first is higher than the second. Also, it feels like an afterthought
> that this game involves Icehouse pyramids at all: one part of the
> rules suggests using them to keep score, encoding numbers based on
> stacking configurations, while another part talks about using dice to
> keep score. (There are pyramids on the board as well, but these could
> just as easily be pawns, or painted miniatures.) The rules are also
> ridiculously complicated, with each playing card representing a
> different action, resource, and event, based on three lookup tables
> filled with text descriptions of what they do. Even if this were a
> custom deck of cards, there probably wouldn't be room on most of the
> cards for the explanatory text! There might be the germs of a decent
> game buried in here, but it's probably not an Icehouse game.
>
> [1] http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/ratings
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War
> [3] http://www.thegamesjournal.com/
> [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim
> [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28card_game%29
>
> --dougorleans at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/icehouse/attachments/20080320/574910b5/attachment-0001.htm