Design Diary Tuesday: I Hate You, Drawing Board

... but it looks like I'll be going back to it for a bit.

(this is game in progress that's being discussed, just as a refresher)

There's currently a lot of fuzziness involved with how projects are chosen and how players gets rewarded for making progress, completing projects, or exposing other player's incompetence. Based on the results from yesterday's calculations, the deck would also need to be more than 40 cards thick - maybe it'd go all the way up to 60 or even 80, an uncomfortable number to print play decks with.

I'm also being constantly tempted to add complexities to the game. What if when you undertake a project, you can boast or bid how far you can go with it? Go bigger for more funds and reputation, but get more blame for its failure. There should also be rewards for completing the same project before another player to earn extra rewards.

But adding all these things don't change the fundamentals of "cheat" or "not cheat". I really hope I can come up with ways to accomplish different levels of deception, with bigger lies yielding bigger rewards.

(Belated) Design Diary Monday: I Am Not a Wizard With Spreadsheets

One of the many weaknesses I have with game balancing is I have an extremely poor background in statistics, and apparently statistics is all the rage as far as balancing numbers are concerned.

A few weeks ago, a certain reddit topic brought me to the use of hypergeometric distributions. My current work in progress idea surrounding deception will make heavy use of the concept of "BS" style card game and some type of melding card game.

I've started with this google spreadsheet. The only relevant table is the third one at the bottom that shows the probability of the player having N or more cards after drawing X cards from the deck. The one published above uses a standard deck of playing cards, and calculates the probability of having N or more cards of the same suit.

If each project type in my game idea corresponds to a single card suit and the values doesn't matter, then the distribution would show me how many cards a player might need to complete a project on his or her own, using materials (cards) of the appropriate suit.

Just to throw it out there, a 5 card project size seems to be a reasonable number. The distribution tells me that there's a 50% chance I'd have 5 cards of the same suit... after drawing 18 cards? That can't be right.

The percentages are deceptive. The number tells me the percentage of all possible hand of 18 cards... but I've been starting with a hand of 5 cards and consciously made a decision to pursue a suit that I already have - often with 2 cards. Adjusting the starting numbers to a 47 card "deck" (since I've drawn 5 cards already)  and 11 cards that'd yield me the same suit (since I already have 2 in my hand) yields a much more reasonable 50% to get 3 more cards of the same suit at the 11th draw... until I realize that I've already drawn 5 cards in this case so technically I'd get the 50/50 at the 16th card. Replaying a few hands with a real deck of card confirms this - getting that "flush" is actually pretty darn hard.

Interestingly, there's a 62% of having 5 cards or more of the same suit in the beginning of a 4 player game, if each player draws 5 cards to start with. If the game allows trading, the chance of getting those 5 cards would be significantly easier.

These numbers, once I mess around with it some more, can tell me a lot - it sets boundaries for quantities that are within reason, and with these guidelines I can come up with a card mix for my initial test. It's probably a lot harder to look for the fun in those numbers, but I firmly believe that's where the number crunching part of game design stops and the art part begins.

Tomorrow (well, later today): the promised initial numbers for the deception game. This design is going overtime!

(Belated) Design Diary Monday: Deception

Last Monday I began brainstorming ideas central to the Pirate movies, and after mulling over it for the rest of the week I've found the concept of deception to be the most intriguing. Deception was present, or it was intended to be present, in every stage of the pirates card game design, where part of the crew you set sail with are suppose to be hidden, but in practice what your enemy brought to a fight never seemed to matter as much as your own composition.

So I kept the idea of deception as the central mechanic and narrowed my focus. When it comes to deception, two types of games come to mind: hidden role games like Mafia or The Resistance, and hidden value games like Dead Man's Chest's very own Liar Dice (okay, the movie didn't invent the game, but it certainly brought it to most people's attention). Of the two, I've come up with an idea to work with hidden values: the art of running researches and the possible deception involved in securing funding while having honest breakthroughs versus lying through your teeth.

In the beginning, I've started the idea with two very basic concepts: research projects and research breakthroughs, which supports the projects. The projects are public knowledge: everyone knows you're working on a project and trying to complete it in time. The breakthroughs, however, are hidden by default: you may have materials strongly tied to the project (yellow), "wildcard" materials (green) that supports the project but not to the degree of the "pure" stuff, and fake materials (white) that are made up stuff to prop up your project's credibility. The deception surrounding your research's actual progress forms the core idea of the game.

Expanding on this core idea yield the following:

Let's say your research's real progress is the sum total of your relevant material's strength (let's just call breakthroughs "materials" for now). Strong materials gives you 2 points, related materials 1 point, while made up materials obviously 0. At some phase in the game, investors would come in and invest more funds based on the number of materials you have, not the actual progress of your research. In turn, you can pour those funds into acquiring more projects and getting actual breakthroughs. This sets up the incentive for players to risk putting down fake progress because it means they'd get themselves the real stuff faster. We still need a reward mechanism for busting other people's lies though:

Here is one possible implementation of the investigation mechanic. An opposing player must spend some of the grant money for a private investigation into some aspect of the research. The more you pay, the more through the investigation becomes. For example, a cheap investigation can only randomly expose whether one of the materials is completely fake; another one might reveal several pieces of info at once; the strongest would probably tally all the materials and wager the actual progress is below a certain level. Problem is, I don't feel like there's a good reward to a successful investigation that is thematically and mechanically sound. I suppose the one paying for the investigation might get money from a lawsuit, and maybe this model is ultimately the best one (since it is extremely simple), but the one that I'm going to try developing actually looks like this:

So I've added one more layer to a research project, that is when you have enough actual progress, you can open up those materials to sell a real product for money and reputation. Reputation becomes the game's real measure of victory, not money. It gives research projects a natural life cycle so there's no need to clog up the play space with projects where all progress are real, and I can balance the game to give honest players appropriate rewards. I can also set up a reward for investigations that thematically makes sense - reputation - where exposing other researcher's bad practices would earn you some reputation but falsified claims might actually give you a reputation penalty. That part of the diagram might be changed, to be honest, but I think I'd very likely keep the "release a product" part of the project life cycle - it completes the game in ways that the simple version simply cannot.

I have some other ideas such as having collaborating research partners (splitting funds and reputations), or special restrictions attached to specific projects, but the general idea is sound. The next phase of the project involves a bunch of heavy calculations to come up with an initial set of numbers attached to all the different components of the game. Math... I guess... I'll do that next week. Yup!