Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 8, 2016 15:42:12 GMT
So after playing your first game, what did you guys think overall of the basic Quidditch mechanics? The final version will have Feats and skill progression to add for more variety, but I wanted you guys to get a taste of the base game first.
Was it fun?
Would you enjoy this as the primary game mechanic for a campaign? (Keep in mind there will still be an interactive mystery story, roleplaying, spell acquisition, and locations to explore. Compare Quidditch to the daily actions in the Hunger Games.)
Did the game feel strategic? Do you feel like your actions and choices mattered?
I really enjoyed it, while the game did feel strategic to a point I think the main issues I had have already been addressed before I had a chance to mention them regarding the snitch and beating. If we don't make a decision on the snitch I fear what I thought at the beginning would hold true, that a small lead in the first round would allow an instant win in the second period as long as you focus on the snitch. If altered I'm pretty happy with it! I think the choices we did have available mattered enough, I was somewhat torn at times between who to target and when which gave me the right level of uneasiness.
I'd also really like to expand the team, it'd be fun to be able to include more people (beaters/chasers) for the final game, I know we're a small test group and I believe more people would want to play the final version, correct?
I think that the game of Quidditch itself is a little unbalanced and only serves well as a fictional sport. The catching of the snitch needs a different mechanic in order for it to be difficult enough to attain. It was far too easy to just focus roll for the snitch. Maybe implimenting multiple factors to catching the snitch? Like you have to roll to spot the snitch, which can become easier to do as time goes by, and then once you spot it you may roll to then chase after it, and then a final roll to catch it. This will prevent people from just spam rolling seek with the blind hope of ending the game quickly, and add a more difficult aspect to the role.
Post by Quinn Starling on Feb 8, 2016 18:45:57 GMT
I agree it's a bit unbalanced. I like that we worked out the beater rule, although it makes beating a beater in the last quarter useless. So then they'd want to focus on hitting the other positions. And I like that there's the strategy to consider for beaters considering who to hit and how hard to hit them -which changes each round depending on how it's going -like second round I figured the game would end soon so I targeted their main scorers instead of their beater now that I knew their beater's beating rolls would be full value that round. I can't say too much for the other positions since I played beater, but I imagine the chaser & keeper strategy part is similar and just as fun. (I'll get to seekers later)
With how it's set up currently, I feel there's too much weight on the first quarter -snitch unrelated. If you're hit too many times there's no coming back at all which makes it not fun. Maybe a new consideration of IP amount dealt and amount of IP recovered while resting would help with that?
I also feel it's largely luck at this point. There were such high rolls first round -both, actually. If you're unlucky first round, you're basically screwed for the rest of the game considering how important the first round is, with this setup. I'm not sure how the luck component would change once feats and skill progression are added in...it'd be interesting to see.
As for seekers, I still like the idea of a value-increase for the snitch as the game goes on -it'd make games a little longer than 1-2 rounds and more fun and more competitive. And I like the "Seek/Search" and "Catch" options for a seeker. I think that, combined with the increasing snitch value, that makes the seeker more fun to play and strategize when to seek/catch and when to help with their +1 skill.
So, I had fun in the sense that it was a new experience and fun to try out, but if every game went like that, no I don't think it'd be all that fun. I like more skill/strategy involved than just luck. I think that, if it's mostly just luck anyway, my decisions don't matter quite as much.
And I also think adding more people to a team would make it more difficult to plan out & keep track of stats, especially with the seeker now needing to consider score from chasing points more than when we played this game. If there were 4 teams of 4, there could be 2 games going on simultaneously. OR, with 3 teams it could be a tournament style.
With so many elements in play, individual choice did feel like it mattered when it came to planning purposes. That being said, luck plays a big role in how this game goes, especially when you consider the momentum carrying forward through the quarters. There isn't really a means of a come back mechanic save the current version of the snitch. Even then, its still down to luck, which has already been tipped with penalties...
I like the idea of the progressive Seeking system with different actions and different values of the snitch based on what period its caught. That would definitely give the Seekers some variety in their play choices.
If we're looking at radical ideas... maybe we'd have more of a variety of effects for beating? Here's one to throw out there:
Tackle: On success, impose a -3 penalty onto the received player's next action. I think of it like what would actually happen in Quidditch, someone rams you, its much harder for you to accomplish whatever you're currently doing.
Bludger: On success, the receiving player is knocked off his broom. He fails his next action. Like Tackle, but much more effective. I can understand how this might slow down play though... maybe only limit this action to Beaters.
Club: On success, you sent the receiving player reeling. -1 penalty to all actions for the rest of the game. This would make permanent effects harder to achieve, but make the Rest action inusable. Maybe limit this to beaters as well.
I imagine the ones above would be difficult to balance, but figure worth considering.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 8, 2016 20:23:09 GMT
While I like the idea of the Beater's actions doing different things, I think everyone is overestimating the effect of Injury Penalties. It SEEMS crippling because personally all of your rolls are worse and nobody likes to feel weakened, but in the larger picture your opponent just spent one or more actions just to reduce one player's actions by 5-15%, which is already a minimal effect plus they have the option to undo the penalty with a Rest action.
I think spending an action for a chance to erase one opponent's action is very weak. Personally I would never waste an action on that.
And I agree that adding players to teams would get hard to manage from a strategy standpoint and also for the person writing the summary. Having to figure out the result of 24 actions in one period is already a lot.
Well resting is one of the few actions that actually have a guaranteed positive result, even if it isn't as valuable as taking the other actions at penalty. You're correct that resting is less valuable in late game due to injuries penalties being more effective the more actions it effects. I never considered that when I was putting together my notes...
In a best case scenario, a rest action will alleviate a 10% penalty from future rolls. At the beginning of the 2nd quarter, this could help boost the odds of success for up to eight actions depending on how long the game lasts. Part of my calculations from before attempted to create a weighted value on each action, with the beater's actions being assessed as a product of the probability of succeeding and penalty on an opponent's actions. That value increases the longer someone does not rest, but I can see your point in trying to weigh the odds between using an action to remove that penalty vs. another chance at success.
If I have a little more time this weekend, this could be a good opportunity to create a probability distribution comparing the two choices. I'll let you know what I figure out.
Playing a Keeper this round may make me biased, but it feels like the different roles have different chances to be effective. This is still 'fair' because both teams are playing with the same roles; but less agency = less fun.
To affect the game as a Keeper, you have to:
1: Pass your check on Keeping the chosen goal.
2: Hope the opposing players takes a shot on that goal.
3: Hope they rolled between a narrow margin. Too high and they'll make the shot anyway. Too low and they would have missed anyway.
We may want to remove step 2 and rework it so that Keepers provide a defense to all goals, or Rework Step 3 and the way shots are scored to make it pit chasers and keepers more directly against each other.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 8, 2016 22:36:05 GMT
Sprye Tatel I 100% agree and this is something I thought about a lot during my testing. While there is a random factor in hoping that you guard the right goal, my hopes were that there would still be some strategic thinking. For example you might decide to guard a 30 pt goal to prevent a comeback, or guard a 10 pt goal when the other team is winning and is likely to play conservatively. Similarly Chasers would try to think 2 steps ahead and anticipate which hoops the Keeper think they are going for.
We could reduce the options and only have a 10 and 20 point goal. I had tested that and it worked all right, but this makes for lower scoring games.
Keepers could increase the DC of all goals, but then there are no choices to be made.
Maybe Keepers have completely different options, similar to Walltur 's Beating idea. Deflect (Easy DC) reduces the point value of a shot (30 pt shot becomes 20 pts, 20 pt shot becomes 10pts, 10 pt shot misses). Save (Medium DC) completely erases a shot... There's a lot of issues with this, but maybe this will spark some inspiration?
Any other ideas for alternate ways to play out Chasers vs. Keepers?
You're right in that choosing a goal allows for strategy, which helps keep the games fresh. Could we remove the concept of the different DC's for different goals and instead directly measure the rolls of the keeper against chasers? Something like:
Any player attempting to score announces their target and rolls against the defense roll put against the keeper. If they meet or exceed the keeper's roll the goal is scored.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 8, 2016 23:29:20 GMT
I problem I foresee with this is that the success of Chasing becomes very random. The DC to score a goal will be wildly different every time and no one would have a clue as to how well their team has performed until the end of the period. And the best strategy would be to Keep each goal once to prevent uncontested goals. Then other players would try to re-roll any of the Keeper's bad rolls. So I think there would be very little decision making for the Keeper.
As we add in feats & skill progression...I'm wondering what would happen if we took away the +1 action option? Like, each position only has their own specific options. It'd limit things, but would it make things more simple and fun or just boring? Did you have in mind that we'd earn other additional action moves/skills as we go? Or just improve the +3 and +1 we originally chose?
I think a huge strategy that I missed, mostly due to a hurry to select our team, was choosing which skill to make my +1. I think I chose poorly. It'd really take a lot of teamwork in the beginning to set up the right combination of those extra skills. Would it help more to balance everything all out? Or for everyone to take on a beat skill or a chase skill, etc.?
Sorry, I realize I haven't contributed to the chaser/keeper part, but those are the original parts that sorta confused me anyway haha.
Post by Morgan "Mo" Weber on Feb 9, 2016 3:27:17 GMT
It's already been said but the whole dynamic between Chasing and Keeping is a little bit of a mixed bag because of not-knowing what everyone's done. It's partially a lot of fun but it's also pretty tough to sort of begin to plan for that, especially for Keepers. It becomes a little, you know, unbalanced at times because there isn't much planning that really can be done for the game which truthfully, is what sports is.
Skill progressions could be cool and make this a little more balanced and I like the thought of what Vester said of Deflecting and Saving for the Keepers. I'd like to see how it changes the momentum of the game to have those options, especially in the first period.
Walltur: Mmk, I can see that now
Mar 17, 2016 15:19:37 GMT
Vester Lombard: Beating a seeker in the 4th is pretty huge. Each IP is essentially erasing the effect of one of their successful searches.
Mar 17, 2016 16:28:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: Yeah, I would have hit Ginger more if I thought she'd rest up or if you'd heal her. But I figured that you guys would maybe leave her at 2 since that was her max, especially since we decided to stay inujurred, too Lol
Mar 17, 2016 16:36:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: We planned back between periods 2-3 to consider staying injured if we got to -3 again, to waste any coming beatings. If you aim for low DCs, have enough skill to make up for the IP, AND get lucky, it's sometimes worth it to keep the damage & keep rolling
Mar 17, 2016 17:34:53 GMT
Vester Lombard: I think in the 2nd period you definitely have to rest. 3rd period, maybe, pending your team strategy. 4th period, probably not.
Mar 17, 2016 21:14:43 GMT
Sprye Tatel: In the interest of not adding a new post each day to the Space Debate threads, would we be interested in sharing ideas via Google Docs? tinyurl.com/zlk8sb3
Mar 21, 2016 5:01:20 GMT
Quinn Starling: I'm in favor of death penalty for illegal pretty floral bonnets. I think that needs to be an argument that happens Lol
Mar 21, 2016 13:54:41 GMT
Walltur: Pro, but under the argument that all viewers of the bonnet be executed, rather than the wearer. Deadly illegal bonnets
Mar 22, 2016 4:16:02 GMT
Quinn Starling: Depends on how pretty. We'd need a numerical rating scale, to start. Any bonnet rated 6 or over (by 2/3 vote of galactic council) is determined "pretty" and a single flower may be defined as "floral." Any fixture worn upon the head may serve as "bonnet."
Mar 22, 2016 15:54:13 GMT
Quinn Starling: (that's on a scale of 1-10) And I'd be against death penalty for illegal ones (unregistered, obtained illegally, etc.) Jail sentencing and community work are appropriate, but not death penalty. Too extreme.
Mar 22, 2016 15:56:18 GMT
Vester Lombard: While I am against the death penalty for pretty floral bonnets, I do think that all people who have encountered the bonnet should have their brains slightly melted. I think this would both save lives and prevent any risk of spreading that fashion
Mar 22, 2016 16:25:34 GMT
Sprye Tatel: Again with the slightly-melting brains proposal? Seems very convenient for the Muppet-race; who can re-grow/stuff brain cells! Whose pocket are you in? Who is pulling your strings!?
Mar 22, 2016 17:16:41 GMT
Sprye Tatel: I say that the punishment should fit the crime: The penalty for Pretty Floral Bonnet's (PFB's) should be death by PFB!
Mar 22, 2016 17:19:46 GMT
Quinn Starling: I have found my people. This is where I belong <3
Mar 22, 2016 23:08:03 GMT
Walltur: Any games coming down the pipe? Online practice game of Cornucopia?
Apr 6, 2016 15:19:22 GMT
Vester Lombard: If you guys want we could try doing some online Galactic Debate. It would lose a bit of the spontaneous improv element when played on the forum, but maybe it could at least help figure out which cards are fun or boring.
Apr 11, 2016 16:36:36 GMT
Quinn Starling: We could schedule a "live" session and either skype or have the speaker type up their response within a certain time frame. So, speaker says they're free at 9pm. At 8:55 they're given their topic, then they have from 9:00-9:05 to type up their platform...?
Apr 11, 2016 17:53:36 GMT