The industry is leaning more and more away from player elimination. I grew up with player elimination as a way of life but I see all of the valid points. I will try not to bore you with too much game terminology but there are various cookie cutter methods that help to keep players in the game. One is victory points. I feel like victory points can feel unnatural, especially in a war/strategy game. Please don’t get me wrong, some games use them very well, but many use them like a bad plot device in a book.
The problem with not eliminating a player is a situation I call “Struggling in the noose”. This is a phrase that describes a long drawn out loss. If a player is crippled and will probably not recover they get very frustrated. We found that the same level of frustration can occur when we tried to enforce our feudal system, no one wants to help the person that made them lose the game.
The next issue is the catch-up mechanic. This is a system that will allow a player that is far behind to possibly catch up and win the game. This is also hated, people that have worked hard for a lead in the game feel like it is unfair that someone can use a mechanic to spring back into life. This helps remove “struggling on the noose” but also provides a certain amount of frustration.
We designed the Kings spoils to provide a defined deadline for the game, as a side effect it allows for a lucky shot on a capital city to bring a player back from the edge of a loss. Our feudal system was our first attempt at keeping players in the game. Our Feudal system would have to go, maybe squirreled away for another game.
Over the next week our team will be looking for an alternative rule option that will eliminate player elimination! I don’t want to use something that is not thematic, and the cookie cutter ideas rarely appeal to me. We have a few good ideas’ we will keep you informed on the progress.facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment