--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Robot Design Game" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to robot-design-g...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to robot-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/robot-design-game/8f4f8dcb-f546-4c6f-96ba-de53a1e27d94%40googlegroups.com.
2. Also, the more common cards there are on the table, the most communal the effort at solving the problem. It likely gives a closer grouping in game (since the objective is to think about the solution space), rather than having one person who is a 100 yards ahead of the rest.
I also think enforcing quantified codesign requirements on power and other
resources would help a lot in both cooperative and competitive versions of the
game, to make it less subjective and encourage minimal design decisions.
On Jun 29, 2016 10:58 AM, "Andrea Censi" <ce...@mit.edu> wrote:
> We talked a lot about this with Dylan and prof. O'Kane, and in the end the consensus was to privilege for now the ludic aspect (Pictionary like) but in the mean time also think about the transition to a more formal game. Ideally the informal and formal game could be played with the same cards.
I'll note that this decision was primarily motivated by the need to have a playable version ready in time for the workshop. Having seen it in action, the ludic version seems to have a sufficient audience to remain 'official', even when the more strategic version is mature.
> 1) collectible cards (aka baseball cards)
If this is a goal, I suggest assigning a number to each card, displayed in a small font in some corner, so that they can be sequenced readily by collectors.
> / robot encyclopedia
If this is a goal, we should create cards for each of these robots:
http://www.robothalloffame.org/inductees.html
- Jason