Listen, I also regret the way I handled land. Q*Bert was proposed after two weeks of no land auctions because people with the assets to make meaningful changes weren't doing so. I had no way to know that o was going to go on a journey to explore the edges of the map and, in the process, create land units that would belong to Agora for the rest of the subgame.
Maybe I was going about it wrong. I accept that. I thought that there was going to be an ownership-based win condition, and that Q*Bert would supply a constant source for new land units. It was intended to supplement the core, not distract from it. Furthermore, the land system introduced in the original PAoaM proposals was a simplified version of the one that existed at the end of the land mechanic's life. I was planning on the squabble for ownership to build facilities being the core and then I would propose the rest of the ideas later in little chunks. I thought that my core was already simple enough and that the extra proposals would be the stuff that needed to be playtested. This was not the best way to handle it, I will admit that. But you have to understand my reasoning. After PAoaM, I have a completely different outlook on subgames. If I ever propose more, let's hope I learn from it. But don't berate current me for mistakes past me has made. Now, I've had time to think about what you said about core gameplay and expansions and all that. I have come to the conclusion that I agree. I was hasty in proposing extra mechanics to add on to the core. I have no problem with what twg's doing, proposing some of my ideas as separate proposals to be submitted in a week or two. My point is that, in it's current state, I am not planning on playing space. Once the core is supplemented with interesting mechanics to help make it more fun to play, sure. But right now? I just really don't think I'd enjoy it. (the responses to this email will be so much fun to read.) On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:40 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Ugh - look - I don't want to come across as annoyed, but these were > comments that were made and ignored about the early drafts of land - > all that mess like Q*Bert, land color, etc., really distracted from > the game when it wasn't basically working. All of these layers > really hampered Land from the outset. > > The thing is - with the Agora email style of play, the hard part is > getting a single or limited set of balanced core mechanics working > over this medium (email, officers keeping up, etc.). The best > rounds of games here have been when the basic mechanics are solid > and lead to some good, direct competition with mechanics that would > frankly be too "boring" if it were in a modern board game. Get that > core working. Expansion ideas are pretty cheap and easy to come up > with any time. > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Uninteresting core gameplay is as dangerous for a new minigame as > > overcomplicated core gameplay. It's a balancing act. > > > > Your point is a valid one, I'll give you that, but I believe mine is just > > as valid. > > > > ATMunn, make sure that if you decide to add more mechanics, make sure they > > continue to direct focus onto the core gameplay of space dogfights. > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 07:36 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > The best way to combat Boilerplate Syndrome is to add interesting > > > gameplay. I > > > > don't know where you want to go with this so I'm just going to throw > > > some of > > > > my ideas here and leave you to be insprired. > > > > > > I think you need to be very careful here - too many bells and whistles at > > > the beginning, without focus on core game play, is what hurt Land out of > > > the > > > gate. Make sure the basic mechanic is both working and strategically > > > interesting (playtested) first. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Trigon
