Winner: ...gets a full honest review of their game by the individual participants on their game's BGG entry.
We can figure out voting, deadline and whatever else I'm forgetting later. I gotta run. I just wanted to put it out there. [inspired of course by Nick's contest. Thanks Nick!]
This could be really cool. Any thoughts?
Daniel
ps. Stop being dickheads. There are only so many abstract enthusiasts in the world and even less places where they congregate. Plus I don't want to have to dive into an 80 reply thread to find stuff which relates to the original topic. It's annoying. If you're gonna rant (like I currently am) at least add something in your post which adds something to the topic. I'm not a moderator, babysitter, fight resolver, etc... On the other hand, I love that this forum is not moderated! Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Look at wikileaks :). Anyhow... I gotta run... shit. :D
> Winner: > ...gets a full honest review of their game by the individual > participants on their game's BGG entry.
> We can figure out voting, deadline and whatever else I'm forgetting > later. I gotta run. I just wanted to put it out there. > [inspired of course by Nick's contest. Thanks Nick!]
> This could be really cool. Any thoughts?
> Daniel
> ps. Stop being dickheads. There are only so many abstract > enthusiasts in the world and even less places where they congregate. > Plus I don't want to have to dive into an 80 reply thread to find > stuff which relates to the original topic. It's annoying. If you're > gonna rant (like I currently am) at least add something in your post > which adds something to the topic. I'm not a moderator, babysitter, > fight resolver, etc... On the other hand, I love that this forum is > not moderated! Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Look at > wikileaks :). Anyhow... I gotta run... shit. :D
I suggest we split our 1.000000000 vote up along the real number line. However there must be a singular maximum awarded to 1 contestant or your ballot becomes a duplicate of the "previous" voter's ballot, what that may be. You wont know who the "previous" voter is, until all the posts around your time of post have arrived in this group.
Game Restrictions: 1. Stacking as part of the mechanism. 2. 2 players 3. Must be an Abstract aka no luck, hidden info, dexterity element etc… 4. Must be a game not finished/released yet. 5. One entry per person
Allowances: 1. Concerning topology. Since we're not worried about an implementation prize I say we crack this wide open. If it can't be played in the iggc sandbox we can play it in google docs (or somewhere else if someone has any suggestions) during the playing and deciding phase.
Deadline: Because of the holidays and because one is a date of significance to me I'd like to make the deadline for the entry Feb 9th and the deadline for the decision Feb 23rd. 3pm Berlin time for both dates. All entrants into the contest are more than highly encouraged to vote.
Choosing a winner: You can't vote for your own game. Ties will be resolved by voting again between people tied for 1st. If there are still ties then… we can fight about which game is better here (really this isn't my expertise so I'm open to suggestions although I rather like this one ^_^ )
Prize: Honest BGG full review of the winning game from each of the participants.
On 22-Dec-2010, "Daniel S." <antiw...@me.com> wrote:
> Rules and Conditions
> Game Restrictions: > 1. Stacking as part of the mechanism. > 2. 2 players > 3. Must be an Abstract aka no luck, hidden info, dexterity element > etc…
No sand timers. No donkey tails.
> 4. Must be a game not finished/released yet. > 5. One entry per person
Hmmm. Sometimes you go to invent one game and you end up inventing two. If they aren't minor variants of each other, and the inventor can't objectively decide which is "better", I don't see the harm in entering them both.
> Allowances: > 1. Concerning topology. Since we're not worried about an > implementation prize I say we crack this wide open. If it can't be > played in the iggc sandbox we can play it in google docs (or > somewhere else if someone has any suggestions) during the playing and > deciding phase.
Yes, if you can set up a generic stacking game. This might be a tough phase if it's either hard to create the document or manipulate it. I'm thinking of possibly using a hex board. The only limit on how wide to crack it open is that it should be playable in real life.
> Deadline: > Because of the holidays and because one is a date of significance to > me I'd like to make the deadline for the entry Feb 9th and the > deadline for the decision Feb 23rd. 3pm Berlin time for both dates.
Everything in abstract games happens on a geological time scale so I don't see any point in rushing the contest. For a me a month of design effort can easily slip by with nothing to show for it. I think we'll have more games and better games if we make it three months. Winter just started, so we could make it first day of Spring. Plus I haven't even really started yet. I have to reach over and replace my Hexboard Havannah board with a Toys R Us checkerboard, and I'm not quite ready to do that yet. By the way, Christian, you have some nice boards on your website. I think I'll order some at some point.
> Prize: > Honest BGG full review of the winning game from each of the > participants.
Well, I never go on bgg, but the contest seems like an interesting diversion since I'm developing a renewed interest in stacking games anyway. They're hard to represent on a computer screen though, unfortunately.
On 21 Dez., 18:02, "Daniel S." <antiw...@me.com> wrote:
> Hey All!
> Rule: > 1. Stacking as part of the mechanism
I think that means that the order of stacked pieces is relevant?
Anyway, I thought about a fourth stacking game for my "A"-trilogy for some time now. I ended up with some half-finished designs ... I'll try to dig them out now.
On Dec 22, 9:38 pm, spielstein <spielst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Dez., 18:02, "Daniel S." <antiw...@me.com> wrote:
> > Hey All!
> > Rule: > > 1. Stacking as part of the mechanism
> I think that means that the order of stacked pieces is relevant?
Not necessarily. Focus, Bashni, Emergo and Explocus all handle it differently.
I got a nice mechanism for moving, but no decicion on the nature of capture yet. So I can't breathe anything into it yet to give it life and intent and make it an organism :)
> > I think that means that the order of stacked pieces is relevant?
> Not necessarily. Focus, Bashni, Emergo and Explocus all handle it > differently.
Sure, but there is the notion of a prominent piece, other than in Mancala games where you usually also have an amount of pieces sharing one space, but no kind of immanent order.
> I got a nice mechanism for moving, but no decicion on the nature of > capture yet.
On 22-Dec-2010, "Daniel S." <antiw...@me.com> wrote:
> 4. Must be a game not finished/released yet.
Must not be a minor variation of an existing game from the same designer. Instances of that would be disappointing, anti-climactic, totally deflating, boring, and not worthy of a positive score.
Let's make this a symphony of fresh ideas. Not a potluck of lukewarm rehashes.
Mark, Deadline - First of spring due date is alright by me. That would be March 20th. **Any other deadline date preferences anyone? Entries - I see no harm in having multiple entries. I was just thinking that there might be a lot of games to test for the vote and I had a hunch that Christian could bust out 20 or so in a week ;P Topology - "The only limit on how wide to crack it open is that it should be playable in real life." Sounds good. I guess I would add that you can stray from the norm 'at your own risk'. Meaning that if you're gonna use some crazy rhombic dodecahedron stacking you'd best have a program that we can all use to play it on or it might not get tested. I wouldn't reject an entry on this condition though, I'd be way to curious for one thing :). It'd just be hard to get votes for something nobody can play.
Dieter, I see no problem with pulling out unfinished work. If a contest can motivate finishing something then I'm all for it. About the stacking I guess you're right! I never thought of it that way, but I suppose a stacking game would need to distinguish itself from a game where there's a pool of something having an arbitrary position such as a mancala game or a territorial majority. **Any other thoughts on stacking definition? I wasn't expecting this. Günter says hello btw. I work with him at the Spielwiese boardgames cafe. I was really surprised to see his name on one of your design pages at BGG!
> I see no problem with pulling out unfinished work. If a contest can > motivate finishing something then I'm all for it.
In the end it would be something new for the audience either way :)
> About the stacking I guess you're right! I never thought of it that > way, but I suppose a stacking game would need to distinguish itself > from a game where there's a pool of something having an arbitrary > position such as a mancala game or a territorial majority.
Ok.
> **Any other thoughts on stacking definition? I wasn't expecting this.
No more constraints, please. An idea strikes me right now...
> Günter says hello btw. I work with him at the Spielwiese boardgames > cafe. I was really surprised to see his name on one of your design > pages at BGG!
Ahh, this is the good ol' Bambusspiele "tactic blue" box... so you know Günter? :) It's a small world ... well, it's Berlin, am I right?
On 22-Dec-2010, spielstein <spielst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No more constraints, please.
Maybe even remove an existing constraint. Just a suggestion: Stacking requires checkers, and checkers are designed to slide on checkerboards as well as stack on them. To me, stacking games and sliding games with stacks of height one are closely related. How about allowing games such as Cage, Clobber, LOA, Konane, etc?
If that's getting too far away from stacking games, no problem. Just a suggestion for broadening the range of possibilities.
On Dec 23, 12:12 am, spielstein <spielst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think that means that the order of stacked pieces is relevant?
> > Not necessarily. Focus, Bashni, Emergo and Explocus all handle it > > differently.
> Sure, but there is the notion of a prominent piece, other than in > Mancala games where you usually also have an amount of pieces sharing > one space, but no kind of immanent order.
Well, I forgot Pilare. In Pilare there are checkers and the mechanism is closely related to Mancals's.
> > I got a nice mechanism for moving, but no decicion on the nature of > > capture yet.
> So this could be a racing game ... ;)
Never thought of that :) ... but as it is I'm aiming at elimination and 'soft finitude' as in, say, Focus. Good to have a plan B though.
> It also includes Jenga, but apart from that, a nice collection of > (mainly abstract) stacking games.
> Dieter
Nice list, here are some additions:
1. Bashni. http://www.iggamecenter.com/info/en/bashni.html 2. Emergo. http://www.iggamecenter.com/info/en/emergo.html Bashni is the original stacking game based on Shashki (Russian Checkers). Lasker in turn used the idea to make Lasca, which is the same principle applied to Anglo-American Checkers. Emergo is not a track but a pit - it does away with an initial position, direction and promotion and uses an entering procedure that fits the mechanism like a glove. Since I invented Emergo, I would like to ask you to to consult Benedikt Rosenau about these two. He's a leading expert on Bashni, and column checkers variants in general.
3. Crossfire. http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/crossfire-525 Not all that important, basically 'hexfocus', but if you read the rules you'll find a significant difference: In Focus the 'ceiling' is a stack of 5. In Crossfire the ceiling of a stack equals the number of adjacent cells of the cell it occupies. This has far reaching strategical consequences, since large stacks can be aimed at 'low capacity' cells, redering large captures and numbers of reserves. It provides fixed targets in a notoriously 'fluid' mechanism.
5. Breakthrough. http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/breakthrough-517 A nice tactical race game based on an adaption of the 'explosion mechanism' that also powers Explocus, and that in itself came from a stacking game called 'Explosion' that was published in the English "Games & Puzzles" magazine somewhere in the early to mid seventies.
