new game is a roguelike rpg thing, kill monsters to level up! the focus is choices about how to level up. there are a lot of different tracks and essentially you can allow them to advance in a random order or you can take risks to control the order. standard risk/reward decision - controlling the order is generally better because it can be more focused, build up combos sooner, become more powerful more quickly. but the risk is too much so you cannot afford to always be in control, sometimes you will have to accept a random element and then that will affect your subsequent decisions.
this all works and it is deep complex elegant subtle. but "subtle" is not necessarily a virtue. once someone has played a few times and seen how different choices play out the game becomes interesting, but it is not clear at first. until you are motivated to choose the level-up order you are happy to accept the random order, and that means that you are not taking risks so the game is initially easier. for there to be space to take risks, there must be a somewhat safe environment to start with. in principle this seems quite good: beginners face a challenge they can handle, where experts make things harder for themselves to get an advantage and ultimately progress further. but how it's currently working out is that where there's a tough expert challenge the beginner sees a triviality.
so i'm trying to figure out how to communicate: this game may seem easy, but if you try harder you'll find it harder.
definitely feels an odd thing to say.
maybe i can tune it to feel more challenging at first but that is taking away space to take risks in & therefore reducing the possible things an expert player can try to get an advantage. so i think it's definitely more about better communicating that the space is there to take if you are feeling confident.
maybe i can ignore the problem because it goes away once someone's played a couple of times. not trying to be maximum accessible retention monster.
still so many other things to work out too. got this deck-construction kind of thing happening, lots of cards to choose from and you set up a board and then play it out. so hard to even vaguely balance sixty different cards where players are choosing whatever combinations. ("balance" not meaning "make the same" but rather "make able to co-exist interestingly". this word is used a lot by strategy game designers and has a specific meaning in that context but often people outside of that take it to mean sanding off all the bumps in the landscape and making everything boring so there's no reason to choose any one option over any other. this is almost the opposite of the intended meaning; we want a landscape with bumps in many shapes and sizes just none so sheer as to render all else flat by contrast.)
so much to do. constantly tweaking things and making progress but with travelling and stuff it goes slower than usual and it's a bigger project than i've been used to recently anyway, so it gets a bit daunting.
this sounds exciting! keep up your great work sir!ReplyDelete
What if you up to a certain point increase the options/cards amd then decrease them again. Like a human lifecycle. You learn until you get older and your abilities start to decline. Players would have to give up cards/skills or have them removed randomly.ReplyDelete
It's interesting to see how this problem solved itself! I'm playing the finished thing and there's incentives/cool stuff/shiny things for focusing and being strategic. There's also a framing for scores in the unlock targets. And once you start doing better, you start having incentive to make early game harder for later game advantage.ReplyDelete
I think that there are two separate phenomena here, which are very easily to be perceived as one.ReplyDelete
I think that there are two separate phenomena here, which are very easily to be perceived as one.