View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 22nd, 2017, 8:18 am



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Gameplay Feedback from Playthrough 
Author Message
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2015, 5:33 pm
Posts: 124
Xris Wraith wrote:
And SDE even has an online card generator


O _ O where is this and why do I not know about it?!

_________________
New avatar; drawn by the love of my life and coloured by yours truly.
----------
Subscribe to my youtube channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiC1n2 ... irmation=1
Check out my blog: https://thelandofaporia.wordpress.com/


April 21st, 2016, 11:37 am
Profile
Online
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2014, 9:10 am
Posts: 539
http://rpg.medicationforall.com/sdecardcreator/

You can find the thread in the SDE forum through its author medicationforall

_________________
I claim the right to be unhappy


April 21st, 2016, 12:04 pm
Profile
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 854
Location: Utah
Not an official card generator, right? Just that (awesome) fan made one?


I was wondering how long before fans make rules for cowboy robots in SDE. It seems inevitable to me.

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


April 21st, 2016, 3:31 pm
Profile WWW
Online
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2014, 9:10 am
Posts: 539
That's the one.

_________________
I claim the right to be unhappy


April 21st, 2016, 5:29 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2012, 2:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Ohio
Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
- Showdowns with other Raiders involved do not work well
FIX: 1. Shooting at a Lawbot on your own is fine.
2. Shooting at a Lawbot when another Raider is present should give them the chance to help, but giving them their own roll in competition with the bots and you doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, another Raider can assist you by adding a die to your roll - however, they can ask for anything they want in return for that assistance, from $$ to items to whatever else they can think of.
3. Losing to Lawbots should not have any further negative consequence than spending your action. It's not necessary.
4. Showdowns with other Raiders should be more interesting than just pushing them and maybe stealing coins if they're the highest player. When you Showdown with another raider, roll your hand as normal. The loser DROPS 1d3 coins into the car - they can be picked up just like loot tokens - and has the OPTION of fleeing to an adjacent car. This is so much more fun, and gets the backstabbing friend shooting action that this genre really demands.


1. Shooting is fine but man those lawbots are way too tough (although some of that may have been due to unlucky raider rolls and very good lawbot rolls). I think someone on kickstarter suggested the affects of the marshals and sheriffs shouldn't stack and I agree. Way to hard with multiple re-rolls and such but the effects last longer if there is 2+ sheriffs and marshals instead of stacking the abilities.
2. I wouldn't want to add a dice to the other players hand. The way it is now is fine, you are getting a free action on another players turn. If you win the fight and they lose then you gain all the $$. This is a backstabbing move. What they are missing, the "team-up", should be if the raiders tie then they both win, eliminate one lawbot each and split the winnings with the raider whos turn it is, taking the higher amount if say you eliminate a deputy and a marshal (3$$) one raider would get 1$$ and the other would get 2$$.
3. Agree with this, way less moving from car to car every time you lose against lawbots. Raider v Raider showdowns already give the player the tactical advantage of pushing your opponents around. Maybe modify it by looking at the rank of hands and if you lose by 2 or more ranks then you get bumped from the car otherwise you take cover behind some table or chairs and holdout for another gunfight.
4. I like the idea of dropping coins (makes it video game like) maybe instead of just dropping a $$ though, the raider would lose 1 of their $$ but a random loot token would be placed onto the car. Then you wouldn't need a d6 and the loot amount gained would be random.

Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
- Raiders shouldn't have a chance to interrupt your search. Its a slowing and annoying mechanic. You're bandits, you should settle things in Showdowns.


Taking away that would be losing another backstabbing element. If there was only one piece of loot left on a car and its just you and another raider why wouldn't you want to stop them from grabbing the last loot token, its all raiders for themselves at the end of the day. I wouldn't stand by and let them take it without a fight. Say that token has a 3 on it and one of the cards they draw is for 2+ $$, In a duel you can only get 1$$ from winning, you just lost out on a couple extra $$.


April 21st, 2016, 6:04 pm
Profile WWW
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2015, 9:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Great White North
tat2artst wrote:
1. Shooting is fine but man those lawbots are way too tough...


I think Lawbot stacking is one of the mechanics that they got absolutely right. In the playthrough, they drew the single toughest card in the deck for that one spot, so that's not a normal car. There was also some crazy rolling involved, multiple times rolling natural 5-of-a-kind before modification. It shouldn't be too hard when natural character abilities, some loot, and possibly assistance from other players are factored in. In the early game, you should probably avoid cars like that anyways, as another car in the video spawned only a single deputy.

Quote:
2. I wouldn't want to add a dice to the other players hand. The way it is now is fine, you are getting a free action on another players turn. If you win the fight and they lose then you gain all the $$. This is a backstabbing move. What they are missing, the "team-up", should be if the raiders tie then they both win, eliminate one lawbot each and split the winnings with the raider whos turn it is, taking the higher amount if say you eliminate a deputy and a marshal (3$$) one raider would get 1$$ and the other would get 2$$.


Still doesn't work for me. As is, the players do not 'help' each other, they just get the benefit of a free action on someone else's turn. I'd like to see some real teamwork, because to my mind any backstabbing aspect isn't nearly so potent if you were never working together to begin with. I don't like your 'team-up', as it relying on ties and some janky math. There's also the fact that if someone is behind, and say in the example of the video is rolling 5 with no mod against another player with 6 and 1 reroll and lawbots with 6 and 2 rerolls, there's no good reason for them to initiate a showdown. They have about a 2% chance of winning, a 40% chance of helping their opponent, and a 58% chance of letting the lawbots bounce them both. I'd want the last place player to stay in the game with the possibility of getting help.

Quote:
3. Agree with this, way less moving from car to car every time you lose against lawbots. Raider v Raider showdowns already give the player the tactical advantage of pushing your opponents around. Maybe modify it by looking at the rank of hands and if you lose by 2 or more ranks then you get bumped from the car otherwise you take cover behind some table or chairs and holdout for another gunfight.


Don't mind the idea of comparing rank differential, but as I said earlier its added bookkeeping and I think slows the game down somewhat. In a fast-paced quick game, I don't like a lot of conditional rules.

Quote:
4. I like the idea of dropping coins (makes it video game like) maybe instead of just dropping a $$ though, the raider would lose 1 of their $$ but a random loot token would be placed onto the car. Then you wouldn't need a d6 and the loot amount gained would be random.


Not a bad idea, if you dont mind the somewhat weird possibility in an extended shootout of one coin spawning many multiple times. I kind of like the idea that the actual loot tokens are a finite resource, which you're racing for initially, before in the latter part of the game you're fighting over dropped coins. However, it could definitely work. Also worth noting, the base pledge right now comes with 40d6, so you're not going to be short of those.

Quote:
Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
- Raiders shouldn't have a chance to interrupt your search. Its a slowing and annoying mechanic. You're bandits, you should settle things in Showdowns.


Taking away that would be losing another backstabbing element. If there was only one piece of loot left on a car and its just you and another raider why wouldn't you want to stop them from grabbing the last loot token, its all raiders for themselves at the end of the day. I wouldn't stand by and let them take it without a fight. Say that token has a 3 on it and one of the cards they draw is for 2+ $$, In a duel you can only get 1$$ from winning, you just lost out on a couple extra $$.
[/quote]

Yeah there is some added aspect of realism about disrupting searches, but its to my mind weirdly specific that that's where you want to introduce it. I don't see it as a backstabbing mechanic, to me its an obstruction mechanic that slows and frustrates more than creates an interesting element. Its sort of like in improv when you never want to say 'no', because you stop the action of the scene. You want people to be fighting for loot, not just unable to pick it up. How fun is it, for example, to play MtG against a counter-spell deck (might be a dated reference, haven't played in 10+ years, but it used to be the most slow, aggravating slog of a game).


April 22nd, 2016, 6:41 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2012, 2:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Ohio
Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
Still doesn't work for me. As is, the players do not 'help' each other, they just get the benefit of a free action on someone else's turn. I'd like to see some real teamwork, because to my mind any backstabbing aspect isn't nearly so potent if you were never working together to begin with. I don't like your 'team-up', as it relying on ties and some janky math. There's also the fact that if someone is behind, and say in the example of the video is rolling 5 with no mod against another player with 6 and 1 reroll and lawbots with 6 and 2 rerolls, there's no good reason for them to initiate a showdown. They have about a 2% chance of winning, a 40% chance of helping their opponent, and a 58% chance of letting the lawbots bounce them both. I'd want the last place player to stay in the game with the possibility of getting help.


maybe all raiders that join a fight together all gain a die or re-roll. Just adding to one players hand doesn't feel right to me, if you have 3 raiders shooting out with a group of lawbots I want to see 2-3 of them taken out in a fight. That way everyone fighting benefits and each player that eliminates a lawbot gains $$. You could do it the way you suggest, having one hand like the lawbots, each player joining adds a die to the pool but then if successful 1 lawbot should be eliminated for each raider present. I still think each raiders shooting should be individual.

The last place player still has the possibility of attacking the raider with more $$ than you to steal from them, interrupt a searching raider, or move to a car with less lawbots to gain $$


Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
Yeah there is some added aspect of realism about disrupting searches, but its to my mind weirdly specific that that's where you want to introduce it. I don't see it as a backstabbing mechanic, to me its an obstruction mechanic that slows and frustrates more than creates an interesting element. Its sort of like in improv when you never want to say 'no', because you stop the action of the scene. You want people to be fighting for loot, not just unable to pick it up. How fun is it, for example, to play MtG against a counter-spell deck (might be a dated reference, haven't played in 10+ years, but it used to be the most slow, aggravating slog of a game).


it could be changed that the winner could get the loot token. As it is now the interrupting player has a chance to steal a $$ and throw a searching player to another car before they get the loot. If the searching player wins the fight then they can throw the opponent, take a $$ from them and still continue their loot search.


April 22nd, 2016, 6:10 pm
Profile WWW
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2015, 9:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Great White North
tat2artst wrote:
You could do it the way you suggest, having one hand like the lawbots, each player joining adds a die to the pool but then if successful 1 lawbot should be eliminated for each raider present.


That I really like! It also adds more potential loot to the amount you can bargain for in exchange for helping.


Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
Yeah there is some added aspect of realism about disrupting searches, but its to my mind weirdly specific that that's where you want to introduce it. I don't see it as a backstabbing mechanic, to me its an obstruction mechanic that slows and frustrates more than creates an interesting element. Its sort of like in improv when you never want to say 'no', because you stop the action of the scene. You want people to be fighting for loot, not just unable to pick it up. How fun is it, for example, to play MtG against a counter-spell deck (might be a dated reference, haven't played in 10+ years, but it used to be the most slow, aggravating slog of a game).

Quote:
it could be changed that the winner could get the loot token. As it is now the interrupting player has a chance to steal a $$ and throw a searching player to another car before they get the loot. If the searching player wins the fight then they can throw the opponent, take a $$ from them and still continue their loot search.


Still don't like it, even with the changed stakes. I just don't like it as a mechanic. It simply doesn't feel right to me. It feels sort of ... passive aggressive, maybe, in a game that already has a conflict resolution system in Showdowns. Having this too kind of cheapens the Showdown system too, makes it less special, less central.


April 22nd, 2016, 7:00 pm
Profile
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 854
Location: Utah
Making the winner always get the loot doesn't feel right to me. Basically, it makes it better to stand around and have someone else pick up loot in your room (because then you don't have to spend your actions on it).

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


April 23rd, 2016, 1:15 am
Profile WWW
Minion
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2012, 2:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Ohio
Ulf Beorstruk wrote:

That I really like! It also adds more potential loot to the amount you can bargain for in exchange for helping.


Its probably the simpler co-op way but I still prefer to roll my own dice when making an attack. Its not as much fun watching someone else roll.

Ulf Beorstruk wrote:
Still don't like it, even with the changed stakes. I just don't like it as a mechanic. It simply doesn't feel right to me. It feels sort of ... passive aggressive, maybe, in a game that already has a conflict resolution system in Showdowns. Having this too kind of cheapens the Showdown system too, makes it less special, less central.


Its not really passive aggressive its more full on aggressive "I'm going to stop you from taking that loot by throwing you to another train car so I can grab that loot on my turn". You're on a time limit with limited loot to gain, I wouldn't play it friendly and let the other raiders have the loot.
I see it like joining another players showdown with the lawbots, its just a way to keep you engaged in the game outside of your turn and the added benefit of throwing around your opponent to waste one of their actions. This mechanic has a greater impact on gameplay than a simple raider v raider showdown.


I think the core mechanics of this game are simple enough that you can tweak the rules however you want to fit your play style and it'll still be fun. All I know for sure is I'm excited to play this game and I will probably play this game more than any other game I own.


April 23rd, 2016, 5:46 am
Profile WWW
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2015, 5:33 pm
Posts: 124
Personally I plan to just have raiders who lose a showdown against a real player, drop $$ and have them have to be picked up. Most people will avoid them for the more profitable loot tokens while they are about and it stops players backstabbing unless they need to. There needs to be some punishment for losing otherwise why wouldn't you shoot them? Personally for house ruling if nothing changes I will just use the blue SDE dice to determine the amount of coins dropped!!! maybe roll a red one if your currently in the lead. I personally liked the idea of having a bigger penalty for losing a combat badly, such as a rank 1 hand vs a rank 4/5 hand knocking you off the train as a player, or having an extra lawbot taken out if the bots rolled the rank 1 hand. Personally I like the bonus of multiple sheriffs and such stacking as trying to shoot your way through 4+ guys shouldn't be an easy feet. But the teaming up mechanic is a bit awkward, as stated already if you don't really feel like your working together, if/when you get stabbed in the back it wont have any impact. In a game like this I think that is very important, you need to feel really betrayed. XD

_________________
New avatar; drawn by the love of my life and coloured by yours truly.
----------
Subscribe to my youtube channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiC1n2 ... irmation=1
Check out my blog: https://thelandofaporia.wordpress.com/


April 23rd, 2016, 1:52 pm
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2015, 4:04 am
Posts: 1
How about the lawbots didnt get to use jokers.


April 25th, 2016, 8:05 am
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2016, 4:33 am
Posts: 24
Yes. I mention that in a post on KS. Law bots jokers being counted as a 9. Should give the players a small edge. That said I'm not convinced I need to change anything. I have not play tested yet. Law bots stack and that can make things tough. However I have not seen the player abilities or possible cards that can help them. For example a "dead shot" ability that could target a bot of the players choice can be a game changer. The one thing that seemed to happen too much is being kicked out of the car on a losing hand. Maybe a ability to stick to the car even if losing the round like "Tar Heel". Or, only being kick off if you lose by more than 2 tiers. I'd prefer to see more deputy bots. A ratio change from 7/5/2, to a ratio of 8/4/2. Really looking forward to the possibilities of this game.


May 2nd, 2016, 3:40 am
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2016, 4:33 am
Posts: 24
I also noticed what seem to be a mistake in the play test video. The long arm special events cards stack on top of each other. The top one is in effect for the turn. But the players removed the top card after the player finished his second action and the lower card after the last action of that same player. I believe the card should have remained in effect and removed after all players finished thier turns. Then the top card would be removed and the next card if any would be in play till the end of the round. The way it's shown in the video doesn't make sense.


May 2nd, 2016, 6:15 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2012, 2:03 pm
Posts: 417
Bot with no name wrote:
I also noticed what seem to be a mistake in the play test video. The long arm special events cards stack on top of each other. The top one is in effect for the turn. But the players removed the top card after the player finished his second action and the lower card after the last action of that same player. I believe the card should have remained in effect and removed after all players finished thier turns. Then the top card would be removed and the next card if any would be in play till the end of the round. The way it's shown in the video doesn't make sense.

as I recall from the video, haven't read the beta rules, they said the Grit cards stays in effect for one showdown.


May 2nd, 2016, 9:04 pm
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2015, 9:25 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Great White North
Definitely something that I think needs to be changed. It just doesn't make a meaningful enough impact over one showdown.


May 3rd, 2016, 4:05 am
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2016, 4:33 am
Posts: 24
I agree Ulf, it send odd they are remove after each showdown. Each round seems more reasonable. The beta rules are clearly missing stuff.


May 3rd, 2016, 4:45 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: October 7th, 2012, 2:34 pm
Posts: 124
Bot with no name wrote:
I agree Ulf, it send odd they are remove after each showdown. Each round seems more reasonable. The beta rules are clearly missing stuff.


Or maybe they don't.

Cards being removed after each showdown is certainly to prevent others being piled up to the point of gaining insane buffs that makes lawbots unbeatable.

For the rest, just use house rules. That's what players do when they don't like an official rule and want to use something more suited to them. No need to force your opinion for all the other players, who just may not have the same point of view than you.


May 9th, 2016, 1:36 pm
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2016, 4:33 am
Posts: 24
No one forcing thier options, yet we can and will if we chose voice ours. That said, the cards could not pile up, because once the car is turned over, the number stated on the car would be the number of law cards drawn. If the designers intent is that the they move quickly after each showdown fine. Just seemed odd to me, and Ulf. I'm sure there will be some nifty cards to change the odds, so until I see the full game, I hold judgement, BUT opinions based on limited knowledge is fine and should be voiced.


May 9th, 2016, 4:37 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: October 7th, 2012, 2:34 pm
Posts: 124
Bot with no name wrote:
opinions based on limited knowledge is fine and should be voiced.


Sure, as long as they are clearly showed as such.

So far, that's not what I read. You guys should be more humble and recognize what you are saying are biased, limited opinions on something you don't have all the rules to judge in all fairness. And you should know it.


May 9th, 2016, 6:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.