will wol live on when wok is ready for lunch?

i really like the idea of getting resources by capturing zones. still unsure about the cards because i really hate magic. :-)

are there any previews for wok?

no previews yet.

still not sure whether to make set classes and limit games to 2 classes, or just make it so you can create a deck of any types of troops so the classes dont do anything other than define troops and apply to special abilities (like Heroscape)

Rather than having territory color based on the unit that captured it, might it be advantageous to make it based on the terrain type? In magic, blue mana was water/island, black was swamp, red was mountains, etc...all, conveniently enough, terrain types we already have in the game.

Each map could have a mix of terrain types; with plains (or some basic land type) acting as colorless. You might only need control of a small area of swamp to build basic level black units (with additional colorless), but for the highest level you would need to hold a substantial amount (or have some way to substitute in game). You can choose to play all colorless, or mix in any number of colors; the limit being the land available on the map you choose, the quantity available, and your desire.

Since "choices" is the new game motto , this makes for some rather interesting ones. For one the type of map you choose really determines what type of deck you will build; in a swap map, there could be an abundance of black and blue, but pockets of other colors. You may choose to go with the most prominent colors, or bet on taking over a particular terrain type to deploy certain cards. If an opponent can deprive you of it you may have a difficult time playing those cards. This adds "resources" back into the game, but with more strategic purpose than they had before (I may choose to emphasize one color on the map, my opponent another; any number of combinations become possible). This also makes map design a key element; we'll have the opportunity to create interesting maps and influence the flow of the game (much like putting resources in a certain spot used to do) without forcing it (i.e. a player has to get a certain color to win). Think of it like a subtler form of scenario battles; rather than forcing players to play as the undead, making an abundance of swaps gently encourages it without hedging players into those troops.

Yes, this is much more complicated than simply giving a player the "mana" they need, but I think in the long term it's a strategy that will bear far more fruit. I can imagine players debating the merits of various colors and strategies on various maps (and if they are well balanced maps each will be viable on one level or another). With colorless available a player can choose how difficult they want their choices to be (even if they want to make them at all), and that I think is the key to making a system successful. Being simple enough to allow new players access but allowing skilled players room to grow.

sorry blood, but that wont work.
basing things on the map is far too unbalanced an uncontrollable. especially the randomly generated maps.

and since you build the deck before you start, you dont know where you'll end up on the map. near black or red or white land, means you deck could be the opposite of the land you start on.

if we stay with 2 set classes (4 squads and 4 heroes per class) then each zone color would be selected by the player. this just represents the color/faction the peasants of that zone worship.

if we go to a more free-flowing system where you can choose from any class, there's probably no point in using color reosurces (like Magic), but rather having just one resource like Gold for all troops. This allows you to select very diverse decks that dont have to match any pre-defined classes.

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so its a tough call as to which is better.

Either way though, the land wont be pre-set to any colors.

I really, really like BB's idea. Really, REALLY like it. I mean, I want to play that game RIGHT NOW.

I know what you mean, Req... so like, you pick a deck of two colours and then the map will be subdivided into sections of no colour, colour #1 and colour #2, while your opponent's map will be the same but with their colours substituted for yours.

Of course, if you had a sufficiently sophisticated map generator, you could indeed make the map "random" and yet still make a game map that catered to both players' decks.
Though I don't envy the fellow who would have to make that.



I have some questions proper about WoK, though...
a) Is it browser-based or will we have to buy a disc?
b) Are you going to do this all by yourself? You're a brave man, Req. I'd shudder at the task of having to do this, but I suppose you're already much more accomplished than I am at this sort of thing.

WoK is just an updated version of WoL. Still Flash based using some of the same code even.


As for the maps, I think you're missing what I'm saying.
You cant have colored terrain zones. It wont work.

Multiple players with multiple decks all starting in different places on the map. So unless each map was only 1 type of terrain, it would never be fair. You'd never know which terrain you'll start on so you cant choose what deck to use.

Plus, if an opponent's area is Black, and you have a White deck, there's no point taking their land as it is all Black, which is of no help to you.

no, terrain will not be pre-defined types. it cant be.

I was thinking more in the realm of two-player "duels" as we have now. I apologize.

I see your point Req; I was thinking more in terms of duel games than camps, but a system would really have to work for both.

It is a tough decision; on the one hand you want to give players choices, but an "anything" goes feel isn't very fun either. We must find a good way to impose limits without boxing players in. I was first thinking buildings were the way to go (i.e. deploy a building to get certain troops), but that doesn't seem to add anything to games other than frustration (when you don't' get the building you need in your hand).

Perhaps these new hero units offer a good compromise. Each hero could have a certain unit (or a group of them) that they allow a player access to once deployed. You would choose a basic class/race, but then your hero (or heros) would allow you to create a few special units (even of another race, depending on hero selection).

Ultimately, players would choose two things when building their deck; their base race, and their hero (perhaps we can allow more than one, but certainly there should be some limit...no more than 3 for sure). This imposes some limits (each basic set of units is hemmed by race), but allows players to choose which special units they'd like to take advantage of.

I know it's perhaps a little different than the 4 hero system you were talking about, but I think it's a lot more heroic when the hero units have a real impact on the game. For example, if your hero unit is lost you can no longer train the special troops that were tied to them. You'll still have perhaps 2 others, so it won't kill your game, but it can force a change in strategy; and it does force you to protect your heroes more than one might otherwise do.

As for resources, we could go with a generic (gold/tribute) system, since the units you can train are determined by your heroes and base class there is not need to limit it further through the resource system. As you pointed out, having a complex "land" based system presents a number of problems in multilayer games.

Thoughts?

bit too complicated Blood, and too dependent on heroes.

The system has to be simple, which is why I put forward two systems that are simple mechanically and conceptually.


One issue I just discovered using the "squad" system...
A "squad" which consisted of 2-5 troops (eg 4 Goblins), would actually be 1 troop type, but represented by 4 different figure graphics on the map, to show there are 4 of them in the squad.

However, since the 1 troop type has 4 different poses/images, it looks as though that might make the maps too confusing.

Imagine a battle of 4 different squads... 4 Orcs, 4 Goblins, 4 Barbarians and 4 Militia. You'll have a total of 16 different figures to look at on the map, even though there are only 4 different troop types.
Gets a bit messy on the screen.

Maybe we just need to stick to 1 pose/image per troop for simplicity and quick recognition.

Of course, this means lots more troop art becomes available.
Instead of 4 different Orc images making 1 Orc type, we now have 4 different Orc images that could make 4 different Orc troops. Same for all the other squad type figures.

Yea, that would probably be the best idea. Of course, you need the other types of squads with similar graphics to look different enough to be easily distinguished. If needed, you could edit some of the colors to make them more dissimilar.

You don't want people having to distinguish that a goblin with his right arm raised and looking straight is different from another goblin with both arms down and looking left, but otherwise identical :p Esp. if there are 4 of them, heh.

-Biodus-

I second Bio, the squad idea is good (allowing one card of weaker troops to carry a bit more wight) but the units need to be dissimilar enough that people can instantly identify them. The extra avatars can be held back should they be implemented down the road (for example, if a unit gains a special veteran status you can introduce a new avatar to distinguish it from generic units of the same type)

I hear ya on the complicated part. I don't think complexity is a bad thing though, so long as it is intuitive; i.e. once you learn the system, it makes sense and follows the natural pattern of play (or at least manipulates it in a way that isn't frustrating).

To that end, and as per your two suggestions, the capturing territory and making it your color idea seems to demand a good deal more work. For example, is capturing territory involuntary or voluntary (i.e. it happens automatically when you move a unit to an un-taken or enemy hex or must you tell a unit to do it). If it is the former then what if you capture with the wrong color unit simply because you moved it there, is there a way to "recapture" with a unit of the color you want? If not you may well screw yourself over in the early game simply by capturing with your black infantry rather than your white ranged...not very intuitive. If it is voluntary then you may need "comm" units to convert enemy territory or your own to a different color (unclaimed land can still be claimed by generic troops). There's not necessarily anything wrong with this, but there is a lot of supporting framework that would need to go into this system.

If you're really looking for the simplest way to start things off, generic territory that is automatically captured is probably the easiest bet. I'm not saying I necessarily favor this (I think the first idea is more interesting if implemented well), but if simplicity is the goal (particularly in the early stages of the game's development) you can't get much simpler than the no resource system we have now.

The deck system is, as you note, really tied into this choice. If we use the former it will naturally limit us in the colors we can use (although if we use commander units to capture/convert land, and a player can choose which color they create, they can set that limit themselves). Using generic land allows any cards to be chosen, but reduces the immersion/role-playing quality of using a certain class or color.

If the choice is between those two I think it depends on what you want to focus on. If you want something simple just to get the ball rolling one resource will allow us plenty of flexibly and time to focus on other aspects of the game. If you want something with a bit more substance, don't mind the extra work, and perhaps want to save yourself time down the road I think the color-capturing idea will be more in line with the final product. It gives us room to grow and enhances the richness of the gaming experience, rather than just being a quick and easy way of getting the units out.

You could also combine the two ideas so that players can have more flexibility but the 'natural' colors of the map still have an effect. You could make it so that some territories are colorless until captured by a unit of a certain color (as Req currently plans). Then, other territories could have a natural color so that they only give one kind of energy when captured, and it can never be changed. You could use other variations as well, like say a territory gives 2 energy instead of 1 when captured by a red or blue troop.

There are other ideas and variations you could go with to obtain the desired combination of freedom and rigidity. You don't want to make things *too* flexible...

-Biodus-