(Start with parts one and two).
I don't consider myself a game designer because there are two things I haven't done which are central to game design: a) come up with an original game concept, and b) iterated on a design based on feedback from play testers. Game developer feels like a better fit, because I've taken an existing design and tweaked it, and I'm happy with being able to do this for High Frontier Interstellar because as a solitaire game I can be the sole play tester and be confident the game works.
Recruiting other play testers, especially for board games is a complex exercise and at the moment my 3rd edition Interstellar play testing components are a Frankenstein mess of the base game, 2nd edition expansion, a poster map ordered through Zazzle, a spreadsheet allowing substitution of unused 2nd edition cards for new 3rd edition cards, a hand drawn fuel strip, and a memorised list of changes to the poster map. Then I have to get other people to somehow play the game this way...
So instead of play tester feedback, I'm relying on intuition. And this leads me to a complex idea I want to explore here: that there are ideas that are somehow inherently better than others - in fact, it is possible to find the best possible solution to solve a design problem.
To be clear:- I'm not saying that the new edition of High Frontier Interstellar is the best possible game about crossing the unimaginably huge gulf between the stars. Instead, given the numerous small design problems I identified while playing, I attempted to find the 'local maxima' - the rule change that solved the problem with the minimum complexity and maximum thematic value. And it feels to me like I've been able to find these maxima - which makes me wonder why these exist at all.
To take a concrete example: in the 2nd edition, Biotechs could only perform two operations - and each operation was exclusive to one of the two possible starship configurations in the game (Beehive and non-Beehive). Biotechs ended up feeling not very 'Biotech'-like - they lacked thematic punch and flexibility.
I experimented with modifying the Biotech promote ability to allow them to (only) promote cards in the vats:- which ended up both too powerful and less interesting (it trivialized avoiding Alzheimer's). But this solution remained in my variant because it was the best I could up with, but ultimately unsatisfactory.
I needed a better answer - something that fitted the idea of a powerful ability but with a significant drawback. And it's the process of finding that answer that intrigues me.
During the hectic 'week of development' that resulted in 90% of the changes to the game (between the 2nd edition & variant rules to 3rd edition that emerged), I typically would confront each problem in sequence - either to develop a temporary patch (like the Biotech vat promotion idea) or to return to the problem plus temporary patch and find an ultimate solution. This would take roughly 20-30 minutes of examining the problem in my head, trying several other 'obvious' fixes and looking at why these wouldn't necessarily work. I'd end up focusing on one fix that I'd repeatedly try even as I'd forgot, then remembered why this fix wouldn't work. This would sometimes be followed by a sudden flash of insight which would reveal the 'local maxima' fix which would be somehow related to the solution I had fixated on, but addressed all the issues I'd thought about - if it was the first time I'd approached the problem, I would end up trailing off with the 'good enough for the moment' patch instead, and move onto another problem - perhaps documenting (via email or Google docs) why this solution was acceptable but didn't quite address the whole problem.
The next time I develop a project like this, I'm going to keep a developer diary to track this sequence more closely - because often the interval between the temporary fix and the ultimate solution would involve a period of sleep or exercise, where my unconscious mind would have the opportunity to chew the problem over before regurgitating the need to look at the problem again. I say that because the second time examining possible solutions would still need a period of reflection before finding the answer and it is not clear to me in retrospect whether this unconscious process was delivering the answer to me in a hidden form or simply giving me more ways of approaching the problem.
Not all problems took this form:- there is also a design process more akin to traditional brainstorming which feels like the unstopping of a dam to let the reservoir fill up the contours of an empty valley downstream. This occurs when I'm working on more of a blue sky or blank slate design space: such as the Extended Operations expansion to Interstellar I may release at some point where I came up 3 new professions and new operations for each existing profession in a relatively short space of time. There's also what feels like a line by line editing process, which usually correlates to a literal line by line editing of the rules, where a rule is expanded on, clarified and tuned to handle all the cases that could eventuate while playing.
It's this 'line by line' edit process that is more likely to reveal problematic rules:- but also the most likely to create problematic rules in the first place. This is because this editing is local rather than holistic, so that errors can creep into the game where 1 section of the rules says one thing where another part of the rules is operating on a different set of assumptions.
As for the inspired rules that just feel right, I'm not even able to always completely articulate why they are the correct rule. Take the final solution to the Biotech issue:- I ended up leaving them unchanged from the 2nd edition except to give them a new operation Wet Nano Lab with the text ‘Discard a Graveyard card from the game to perform a Science or Engineer Op’.
I can't explain definitely why this is the best solution. It meets the criteria of powerful ability with a drawback, and the thematic crunchiness I was looking for. It has the great side effect of allowing a get out of jail operation from either of the two most powerful careers in the game, and the drawback is significant enough that it is going to be used sparingly except in desperation (the Graveyard is used as a resource counter to limit the number of children your starship may have). But why of all of the possible design space in the game, is this ability the right one? I can't answer that on any level other than instinct.
(And my all time favourite game design technique worked perfectly again: if you ever have an equation that sort of does what you want, but isn't working, reverse the equality e.g < becomes >; or vice versa. Here it made fighting Hostile Goo a far more interesting proposition. I love it because it is so completely nonsensical but surprisingly effective).
In the next part, I want to talk about the multiplayer Interstellar game.
Friday, 26 June 2015
(Start with parts one and two).
Monday, 15 June 2015
(Start with part one).
There are several reasons for developing a 3rd edition of High Frontier Interstellar. The first one is simply mechanical - a number of additional cards need to be incorporated into the game from the core 3rd edition High Frontier. The impact of these additional cards is mostly positive, in that they make existing cards more useful, but there are some 3rd edition cards which are extremely useful in the base game which are terrible for Interstellar (Project Valkyrie being the most notable example), and several robonauts are added which are lightweight and do not need supports, which makes 3rd edition Interstellar easier in many ways.
The second reason is much more out of this world. Huge advances have been made in the field of exo-planet research since the 2nd edition was released. We know now that it is extremely unlikely that a gas giant orbits Alpha Centauri, whereas this was incredibly likely in the 2nd edition. There's also some nearby systems of interest which appear to have planets around them which were not included in the 2nd edition map and Pawel Garycki provided a number of suggestions which Phil adopted. And finally, Ruslan Belikov, an exo-planet astrophysicist specializing in nearby star systems was able to assist with creating a more realistic model of exo-planet searches which unfortunately had to remain an optional rule due to the record keeping required - a 1d6 roll for each exoplanet search needs to be retained until the system is explored. Ruslan would also have liked the planetary types terminology used to be updated to match what researchers in the field use, however Phil Eklund decided against this.
The third reason is the 2nd edition of Interstellar is a game with a number of quirks and flaws which I don't believe were identified during the original play testing. I ran into one fairly early on when I began playing the game: it is possible to have passengers that are effectively immortal because they cannot be killed by ship event rolls. These are not the only hazard which you can encounter during your journey, but they are the hardest to manage, and having immortal passengers is a significant advantage. While I decided to keep immortals (with Phil's blessing), the rules as a whole needed significant work to clarify exceptions and unusual cases. One example was how to handle robots which accumulated stress from mutinies, which previously had no consequence. In the 3rd edition, you want to avoid stressed robots where ever possible because of the extremely dangerous 'Pod Bay Doors' event roll.
Having an immortal crew highlighted another problem: there are a large number of patent decks which are almost never used in the game. High Frontier has various patent types such as generators, reactors, robonauts and so on, most of which are included in Interstellar. However the only circumstances in which you're forced to draw from these decks is if you lose a radiator to a ship event roll. If your starship engine doesn't require a radiator (and a number of designs do not), you'll never need to research anything except robots and robonauts, which can be consumed to produce factory cubes, which can then be used to improve the configuration of your starship (using a Nano-reconfigure Hull operation). My variant rules added a complex set of risk rolls which would only occur if the starship had no alert engineer: it wasn't until I came to revise this for the 3rd edition that I realized I could replace them with a much simpler and elegant single risk roll that acted almost exactly like a glitch from the High Frontier game.
Another issue I ran into was handling what I termed 'conservation of mass'. I've written more about this in the final rules, but essentially the issue was the rules as written meant that any time a card was decommissioned, the starship lost irreplaceable mass, except that the mass could be replaced by patching your radiators. And because the written rule wasn't replicated onto the poster map, the way it tended to be played was the reverse - you could freely 3D print cards from your hand, and so every time you completed a research operation you added mass to the starship for free. To address this, I ended up deciding that cards in your hand count include the mass stock needed to 3D print the cards and using a graveyard to track mass needed to support colonists produced by parenthood or bioengineering (except on beehive star ships). Factory cubes then become an input needed for research, effectively acting as a fungible mass commodity on the star ship which I could use in several circumstances.
But the key motivation I had in designing my variant, which has survived albeit with numerous changes in the 3rd edition High Frontier rules, was a redesign of the process of acquiring breakthroughs - game changing technologies unique to Interstellar. The best approach to acquiring breakthroughs in the 2nd edition of High Frontier is to make your crew scientists and hope they survive their old starting age of 5 turns (60 years) to research what you need. This is extremely dependent on luck, with little choice on your part, but is pretty mandatory, because the breakthrough roll needed 2d6 < Age, where most of your passengers never survive past age 4-5.
Paradoxically, the second best approach to acquiring breakthroughs was to make all your other science capable colonists Domestics instead of scientists. Domestics are good at having children while they're young and surviving Alzheimer's using their self-promote ability. Since they are unaffected by cancer, the other age based killer, and can remove their own stress, the domestic career is arguably the best way to preserve a passenger to an age old enough to make it worth switching to scientist. And if you do have an old enough a scientist, they were capable of making every breakthrough in 2 turns.
So I rewrote the breakthrough research rules with two key elements in mind: 1) it must be worth attempting breakthroughs while a young scientist, and 2) breakthroughs should require more work but be more consistently achievable. The final design has you choosing one of two breakthrough paths: one which has a lower rate of success but accumulates more data disks every time you attempt it (where a data disk has an equal improvement to aging your scientist one turn), and one with a higher rate of success but which accumulates less data disks. Almost by happenstance, I ended up tying breakthroughs to the ship politics for this latter approach. Phil had coloured two of the four original breakthroughs the same colour as two of the five possible ship politics. Since I wanted more breakthroughs to make it less likely you'd accumulate all of them each game, I ended up designing two more breakthroughs and recolouring one of the originals. Now, you can research the breakthrough that matches your ship's politics with the greater chance of success (2D6 < Age + Data Disks, instead of 3D6), although if your scientist is young, you're probably better off taking the less likely approach because it doubles the disks you accumulate.
A key effect of these changes is that passengers have much more to do in the 3rd edition than the second edition. Previously, you'd just need to have engineers 3D print themselves and robonauts to act as Spacewalkers to keep the ship's Bernals promoted as they moved through the local interstellar cloud (LIC). If you didn't need radiators, and had enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate during the trip, that would be the only requirement, provided you had sufficient points of passengers in the vats and a habitable world as a destination.
Now, you can build an on ship economy by having your engineers produce factory cubes using robonauts and having scientists consume these cubes to research more robonauts or complete breakthroughs. You also need alert engineers to also 3D print replacement parts for cards lost to glitches. Business passengers can facilitate these functions in a lot of ways, particularly saving you from having to send promoted passengers back to school, as well as replacing lost scientists or engineers in emergencies. Biotechs and domestics can act as almost secondary classes because of a significant design change I made: the number of operations a passenger performs is equal to the number of careers they have - both being limited to two per passenger (with promoted passengers capable of having two disks of the same career). I did this because I kept losing track of which passengers had perform which operations, and so tracking operations using career disks becomes a natural way of playing the game, with an accompanying two fold improvement in the speed the game can be played at. Previously I would have to write up a game as I played in order to have any chance of playing correctly: you can see one example of such a transcript here.
In part three, I muse on the interplay of design and patterns.
Saturday, 13 June 2015
I have a bad habit of writing variants to games - as you may have noticed. Usually these amount to nothing (my Civilization board game variant), but occasionally they result in large design documents (my Civilisation Revolution expansion) or actual implementations (Unangband, UnBrogue).
My High Frontier Interstellar variant rules have made the jump from the design document phase to implementation, and hopefully will be included in the upcoming Kickstarter. Phil Eklund, the designer for High Frontier, had seen me active on the forums and liked some of the design suggestions I had made. He contacted me on April 18th this year with some comments in the Google document to the effect he was looking at including my variant rules in the 3rd edition of High Frontier, and that I had a week (!?!) to play test the finalized changes and come back to him with additional feedback and recommendations.
The actual development process has run through to the 13th of June as I've made minor tweaks and clarifications to the rules, although the vast majority of changes were made during that initial week. I've got an email from Phil dated the 24th where he's obviously worked late at night to include my rule revisions into the poster map available on Zazzle.
High Frontier Interstellar is primarily a solitaire game (with two highly experimental multiplayer rule sets in the 3rd edition) which uses the components including patent cards from the main High Frontier game, but has its own rules and map board available for purchase as a poster (be sure not to buy the postcard size version of this poster by accident). It achieves this by reusing statistics, symbols and some rules from the High Frontier patent cards, along with a small number of additional card features highlighted or surrounded in green to indicate they are specific to or also apply to the Interstellar rule set (piloting and terraforming symbols, starship engine thrust and fuel consumption figures and some robot colonist special abilities.)
Thematically, Interstellar is the shot for the stars following the colonization of the solar system modeled in the High Frontier game. You are responsible for managing the crew and would be colonists as they travel in a star ship fraught with risks: each 12 year turn you roll a ship event dice which indicates what risks each passenger career suffers - with up to 4 out of 6 face rolls causing a potentially deadly risk for some careers. You can minimize risks and suspend aging by putting passengers into the vats, but they're otherwise careerless while in the vats so don't get any actions, and have to go to school for 12 years when they exit the vats to earn their new careers (with the attend risks of a ship event roll).
Each passenger with a career can perform one or two operations each turn: the career counters indicate which actions they may select from, the symbols on the cards indicate which careers they may learn at school, each career comes with its attendant ship event roll risks and a list of operations it may perform. This is summarized in the career track on the poster map in a graphical form, part of which is below:
A typical risk resolution is Cancer. Roll 1d6 < the card's Age (number of turns in the game) and the human passenger dies, except if you've successfully researched the Cure Cancer Breakthrough, where you get to roll 2d6. Given that you rarely have more than one alert scientist on the ship, and the difficulty of succeeding at finding this cure is also dependent on their age, you can see how deadly Cancer can be if you are unlucky enough to roll it.
High Frontier Interstellar is a game about balancing risks. There are high risk careers like scientists, and space walkers, business and engineering, and low risk careers like pilot, and domestics, and biotechs, but the careers are there primarily to manage the accumulating risks of age, stress, political differences in the crew, technology run a muck and the comparatively easily managed risks of micrometeroids and the local interstellar cloud (LIC) your starship passes through, to keep your pilots alive long enough (or to have pilot babies) so you are able to stop the star ship successfully when you get to your destination.
In part two, I look at some of the motivations for doing significant development for the 3rd edition.
Thursday, 11 June 2015
It has been a long time since I've posted here. That's not to say I haven't been busy: I'm active on Twitter, perhaps too active, but feel free to follow me there; I've been involved enough in the upcoming High Frontier 3rd edition (planned for kickstarter in the next month or two) to have earned a developer credit on the 3rd edition of High Frontier Interstellar which is a poster based game using the High Frontier components; I've hosted some Roguelike Radio episodes recently; I've publicly committed to writing a book on roguelikes, provisionally titled Killing Letters, which I'll be talking about more once I have it written and working through the publication process (probably a self-published ebook); I'm thinking about a high concept but deeply personal science fiction media podcast modeled on Hardcore History; I have a roguelike design I'm convinced is going to be amazing but is going to take a lot of work; I've started enjoying television (Person of Interest, Hannibal, Orphan Black) - both binge watching and taking my time.
Then there's being a parent.
I have to be careful to avoid over promising of course: I'm years overdue on a trivial bug fix Unangband release because getting the build stack redone takes longer than I have the time to do in a single session so it never gets finished.
But this post is to give you a heads up that there will be at least two, if not three, long form pieces coming up in the short term. I've promised to write a book review, I want to write a development focused post on what I've done to change High Frontier Interstellar and to talk about the difference between design and development from my perspective, and an economic analysis of gaming vs gambling.
And I'm hoping that'll get me interested in blogging more frequently again.
Posted by Andrew Doull at 20:40
Sunday, 13 July 2014
It has been over a year since my last UnBrogue post-mortem article, which just goes to show how much time I have spent developing this Brogue variant, which is to say, virtually none.
However, Brogue itself has had two version releases since I last finished the game, and a number of design changes have either vindicated or echoed decisions I made in UnBrogue, so I thought it worth documenting the similarities. I'm not going to be able to draw many conclusions from these, other than 'I told you so' and there's plenty of things in UnBrogue that are not in or intended to be in Brogue, but which I'd like to see preserved and playable at some future date.
The most obvious one in Brogue is that armour now affects your stealth. This was one of the original reasons for creating UnBrogue, however Pender incorporated a significant rewrite of the stealth mechanism for the Brogue release whereas I merely added a stealth modifier for different armour types. I've not played enough Brogue 1.7.4 to know how the stealth mechanics differ, but the effect was significant enough in UnBrogue that in plate armour you'd effectively end up fighting all the monsters on a level near the stairs you entered through. I'd like to think I was somewhat influential here in making a case for linking armour with stealth, although this is harder a revolutionary idea.
The second is that the dagger now has a higher backstab multiplier than other weapons - although a fixed amount in Brogue, whereas it is enchantment dependent in UnBrogue. Again, hardly a revolutionary idea, but it was one that I was criticised for by some long term Brogue players, so I had a small moment of satisfaction in seeing this in the release notes for 1.7.4.
The third is that immunities and slays now include categories of monsters rather than individual monster types. Again, Pender differed significantly here in that the categories of slaying and immunity are far broader than the ones I chose, although there are some of the same choices (jelly immunity in both versions). I'm less willing to claim any influence here, because I believe Pender already had intended to do this.
The fourth is one of the new puzzle rooms is similar in theory to a number of the puzzle rooms in UnBrogue. Again, this is because I built it from the same elements already present in Pender's game - and Pender would have noted direct inspiration in the source code.
The fifth is the addition of further weapon types. The designs are radically different (and much more inspired on Pender's behalf), and the flail is likely influenced by games like Hoplite, but it was clear that there was a need for more variety, and what I've played of the whip is especially fun.
As for UnBrogue, I'd like to fix up the last remaining bugs and release a full 1.1.7 rather than the release candidate it has been stuck at for 2 days less than a full year; however the bugs I've introduced were pretty resistant to being fixed (I can't duplicate the wand/staff crash bug) and it is likely to be some time before this will happen.
And the attraction of working on UnBrogue has weakened far faster and further than UnAngband. I think there's several reasons for this. Firstly, as noted above, a big part of the initial reasons for UnBrogue have been incorporated into the main game, even though UnBrogue has gone a lot further than just these initial changes. Secondly, Brogue has diverged in a number of systemic ways that it would probably require that I start reimplementing UnBrogue from scratch on the new code base. Thirdly, Brogue has fallen into this unusual space for me, game play wise. After playing the likes of 868-Hack and Hoplite, Brogue feels in many ways both too big a game: the early decisions are spaced 'too far apart' rather than being turn by turn, and I now find myself on autopilot through the first few levels which inevitably gets me killed on level 4 or 5. Whereas Brogue doesn't have enough strategic headroom to be a truly sprawling game that I can lose myself in (like Unangband).
That's not to say that I don't think Brogue is an amazing game. And I also would like to preserve some of the crazy ideas that UnBrogue has, to continue as a variant of Brogue moving forward. But between child rearing, starting work on Unangband again, and my other current obsessions (like play testing the 3rd edition of High Frontier), I don't see a time or a place in the short term for a new UnBrogue release.
PS: I've updated the Rogue Basin UnBrogue page and added a page on the Brogue wikia to include the links to the latest UnBrogue downloads if you are still interested in playing the game. I think it is well worth it, and I've spent a huge amount of satisfying time adding stuff. I'm especially proud of all the new puzzle room designs I was able to come up with.
Monday, 7 July 2014
There has been a mini-spate of 'explainer' articles aimed at easing the neophyte gamer into the world of roguelikes: both on Gamasutra ('Roguelikes': Getting to the heart of the it-genre), and IGN (Roguelikes: The Rebirth of the Counterculture). Both simultaneously praise the old school nature of high difficulty levels, permadeath, procedural generation, and point towards the emergence of the genre into the mainstream as a fresh new trend, with interviews with well known indie game developers such as Edmund McMillen (The Binding of Isaac) and Daniel Cook (Road Not Taken) as well as up and comers like Teddy Lee (Rogue Legacy), Paul Morse and Duncan Drummond (Risk of Rain) and Keith Burgun (100 Rogues, Auro).
But by pointing at successful examples of commercial roguelikes and focusing on pull quotes from current developers, both articles miss the real roguelike renaissance which predates the examples given by a number of years. Listeners of Roguelike Radio and members of the close knit roguelike community will be aware of the much more titanic shifts in roguelike development in the noncommercial space from a long spanning tradition of the big four roguelikes (NetHack, Angband, ADOM and Dungeon Crawl), through to the relative stasis of the early to mid 2000s followed by the explosive reinvention of the genre inspired by the 7DRL competition, and coffee break roguelikes in general.
I would like to trace a through line from this early roguelike Renaissance to the antecedent of almost all recent commercial roguelikes, Spelunky, which in its freeware form was a huge influence on the early successes of the Binding of Isaac and FTL, but I'm not sure whether such a path can be followed. If it is, Derek Yu would be the person to talk to, but neither explainer article includes an interview with Derek, and I don't recall him talking about whether any of the more recent games influenced Spelunky. There is a direct connection between Derek Yu and DoomRL, but I suspect Spelunky was much more fashioned by the general rise of the indie game and Derek's fondness for NetHack than his participation or awareness of early 7DRL efforts.
But even if there is no connection, it is an important part of the story that the community should be telling and a narrative that is far more interesting than the 'difficulty is in again' message that the mainstream press is perpetuating. It is also a way of including the unsung heroes of the rise of the roguelike - the authors of countless freeware roguelikes who influenced and built the platforms upon which we stand, as well as the original authors of Rogue who founded the genre.
Posted by Andrew Doull at 22:56
Sunday, 16 February 2014
Are you willing to gamble an hour of time, sweat and frozen tears on the roll of a dice? That's the question High Frontier will ask of you, and if you're not willing - and the randomness this game tempts you with can always be overcome with more turns and more water (its unit of currency) - the steely eyed missile man next to you will be, and he (or she) will win the game as a result.
Phil Eklund designs board games by building a simulation then letting his play testers tell him what is fun; and High Frontier is the simulation closest to his heart and some twenty years in the making. The basic game (sadly out of print) outlines the template of colonising the solar system by flying a rocket to a planet or planetoid which comes in five spectral classes, prospecting and (if successful) industrialising it using a robonaut and refinery, and then ET producing advanced technologies in the resulting factory which allow you to fly further, faster with less mass and get more water when you get there. The Colonization expansion takes this template and turns it into a compelling, deep, rewarding game.
Each turn you get two types of actions: operations, which lets you progress towards your goal by doing things like earning income, researching patents (cards) in auction, boosting cards into orbit; and moves, which lets you form and move a spacecraft. You begin with one crew operation, and one rocket move, and by acquiring additional technologies, many of which are presented in the Colonization rules as self-contained modules, you can get additional moves as you build and promote freighters, and promote your Bernal - a self-contained space habitat that I strongly recommend you include the rules for if you are playing with the political and event tracks, and additional operations by recruiting and boosting colonists.
The political track comes into its own with the colonist module which lets you recruit would be space farers from the mundane (Islamic Refugees) to the theoretical (Blue Goo Symbonts) - each of which has political allegiance to and votes for one of the five factions in the game, and not necessarily the faction who is its employer. The current politics determines how much you get when you free market patents back to the bottom of the deck; but also who is in power and able to antitrust duplicate card types out of any other player's hand. Extreme politics also restrict some or all players in the game and otherwise mix up the rules; intervening politics takes the form of anarchy or war, which allows felonies and even combat between factions.
High Frontier has been criticised for being inaccessible: and this inaccessibility takes two main forms. The first of which is mechanical. In the perhaps 25 turn basic game, you'll spend the first 15 to 20 turns doing nothing but auctioning for patent cards and boosting rocket parts in order to build and fuel your first rocket. The basic rockets in the game use water for fuel, and 40 tonnes of water in low earth orbit (1 WT) is the basic currency of the game, so you literally are burning dollars as you move around the solar system. The last few turns involve a rapid and risky land grab and industrialisation and then the basic game is over just as it feels like it is beginning - a fault Colonization rectifies but unfortunately by extending what is otherwise a briskly paced 2 hour game.
The second point of inaccessibility is conceptual: and it involves understanding the map. The High Frontier map is an elegant and beautiful artefact - the London Underground map of the solar system out to Sedna in the Oort cloud. Moving about this map, once you grok it, is both graceful and frustrating, as planned routes fall short by one tank of fuel, or the mass of the fuel required to get your rocket to its destination instead brings it to a dead stop. For beginners that frustration manifests in failed missions, where the price of failure often involves many turns of effort to reassemble the rocket and recover the stranded crew.
The map is organised in concentric zones with the sun as their centre, named for each of the planets (plus Ceres) and inscribed with helical paths which allow you to move between zones, planets and asteroids. The primary obstacle in your path takes the form of burns. Each burn uses a number of steps of fuel depending on the efficiency of your spacecraft's thruster: the highly inefficient built-in crew module thrusters cost six steps of fuel per burn, the typical workhorse thrusters you build use two to four fuel steps per burn and highly efficient rockets less, to the point where you reach star drives which effectively use no fuel to move (but so do solar sails which you can research immediately, but whose thrust level and dependency on solar power restricts them to the inner solar system unless you know what you're doing). The lighter the rocket, the more steps of fuel you get for each tank of water you invest (but the more fuel carried, the lower the payoff for adding another tank).
Burns appear at the edge of each zone and around planets - the larger the planet, the more burns intervening; and you typically plan starting routes so that you cross no more than three burns before you reach your destination or a refueling point along the way. But you have to balance burns against thrust requirements, because to land on an usable site requires that you have a higher thrust than the size of the site, or you pay a penalty in fuel steps equal to the size of the planet when you land, and again when you take off. The Moon is size 9 in this scheme, and is one of the more inaccessible places in the whole solar system when you take this into account. High thrust thrusters are hugely inefficient (crew modules are thrust 8 or 9, most starting rockets are thrust 3 to 5), so you'll want to carry a second thruster for the landing, but that adds mass which reduces rocket effectiveness...
When you do reach somewhere; and provided you've managed the more complex task of bringing a robonaut or crew with you, you may be able to prospect the site and claim it. You can only prospect if the ISRU rating of the card you're using to prospect is less than or equal to the water rating of the site, both on a 0-4 scale. Crew starts with 4, most beginning robonauts are 2 or 3: the most easily accessible sites are 0, 1 or 2. This is a hard limit, so you have to envisage the board as if sites with lower ISRUs than you can access simply don't exist, for both prospecting and refuelling purposes. But the roll for prospecting depends on the site size, where you roll one dice (or two, with a buggy) to try to get less than or equal to the site size. Comets are a great example of this trade off: they are wet (4 hydration) but small (size 1) and have adjacent hazards which you must spend 4 WT or avoid a roll of 1 to pass through safely, and the majority are synodic comets are only accessible for part of the solar cycle.
A successful claim is only the beginning, because among the heavier cards in the game are refineries, which you combine with a robonaut to industrialise and build a factory on a successful claim (returning both cards to your hand). It is at this point the spectral class of a site matters: because all the technologies you can build also have a spectral class, which allows you to produce the black side of the card but only at your factories with the matching spectral type. Black cards are typically improvements, but the best white cards typically have the most underwhelming black sides, and the most powerful black sides (including the legendary Salt Water Zubrin) are on the black side of the worst white cards. The most easily accessible spectral class is C but few powerful cards are this spectral type (and no gigawatt rockets), the majority and most powerful of cards are spectral class S, but S sites are amongst the smallest and driest in the game (Lunar excepted), and V, D and M spectral classes are distributed in smaller quantities in harder to reach places.
And when you've built the first of your factories and can begin producing black cards that the game of High Frontier Colonization gets going. I can only describe a 2 player High Frontier Colonization game I played recently over at the Board Game Geek forums where I was UN playing NASA in order to capture the flavour of the game.
NASA was able to establish an early claim on Deimos and started shipping water and ET produced D technologies back to his Bernal. I had tried slowing the game down by going anti-nuke, and using my diplomatic immunity to allow me to continue to research and boost reactors but when it became clear that the game was going to run away from me, I forced two elections using Activism, with a threat of going Egalitarianism forcing him to move to Anarchy after he spent an unprecedented 7 WT on the first election to do so to try to counter the political dominance that my Vatican Observers gave me. With my second election I declared war, and hit his Bernal with boosted Kuck Mosquito powered by a Lyman Alpha Trap, killing his Siren Cybernetics Inc colonists who had threatened me consistently with antitrust, along with 7 other cards including two blacks.
I followed this up with a successful water theft on Deimos, avoiding two of his missile counter salvos, and tried to move my Bernal (with the Vatican Observers) to Vesta to avoid further attack which I had already industrialized but it was destroyed moving through the Karin group which I had bust previously.
I was forced to rely on the Ablative Laser and Biophytolytic Algae Farm to moving and prospecting from comet to comet (unsuccessfully), until just before the red synodic comet, which (due to turn order) he was able to get to before me and prospect successfully - I managed to industrialize a non-synodic comet one burn away. I had been able to research and produce both the V freigher and GW thruster which held out some hope, but with a comet dirtside (along with M class Hertha he used to build his terawatt thruster) he was able to boost more colonists, turn his Bernal into a lab and reach Europa. I conceded when he researched the D freighter after a long inspiration burn: it would have been a short step from there to emancipate the robots and build the Beehive future victory with 4 spectral classes Europa would have given him he needed for the Epic Hazard op.
I want to stress that I conceded at what would normally be the beginning of the High Frontier Colonization late game - because the game had been so one sided. I had failed every prospect I attempted except the last (and where prospecting was automatically successful), he had succeeded at every prospect no matter how unlikely. But what sticks with me, is no matter how far behind I was, there was a possibility at almost every turn which I could leverage, if I looked hard enough. The game felt like playing chess, but where I could find cracks between his bishops and rooks with which to move my remaining pawns.
And this is why High Frontier Colonization rewards the time you invest in it. There is no game winning tactic, easy synergy or cheap trick: and yet when you look hard enough, every move you make takes advantage of your knowledge and understanding of the interlocking systems in the game.
Posted by Andrew Doull at 16:07
Thursday, 2 January 2014
I'm not going to get the runner up details together for a little while, but Darren Grey made the intriguing suggestion that the roguelikes which get between 10-100 votes are the most interesting. With that in mind, and with the assistance of Joseph Bradshaw who has converted the results to a spreadsheet for further analysis (TBD by another volunteer if you want to help out), I'd like to present 'The most interesting roguelikes of the year 2013' as a unicorn chaser.
|One Way Heroics||46|
|Diablo, the Roguelike||37|
|Dungeon of the Endless||35|
|Legend of Dungeon||35|
|Hack, Slash, Loot||25|
|Forays into Norrendrin||20|
|The Veins of the Earth||16|
|Tower of Guns||14|
|Voyage to Farland||12|
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
You probably haven't heard of Noxico. It is one of the sub genre of adult roguelikes, that I only was made aware of when I ran this poll last year. The link I'm not going to include in this post has an adults only warning on the front page. The site beyond it is NSFW but in reality is only barely titillating. I'm bemused to see that the first bullet point feature the game has is 'Reasonable Unicode Support'.
Nonetheless, it garnered more votes than any other for the roguelike of the year, and I wish to congratulate the developer for his or her persistent fan base.
Tuesday, 31 December 2013
Monday, 30 December 2013
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
290 roguelikes have qualified this year: this is only a slight increase of 7 roguelikes from last year and begs the question: 'Have we reached peak roguelike?'. More importantly, there's a significant difference in the included roguelikes as I have included all the 7DRL entries this year. I have not done this in previous years, so the figures could hide an actual drop in the total roguelikes released in 2013. However...
How did the games qualify?
The list was taken from the roguelike releases announced on the Rogue Basin news section between December 16th 2012 and December 16th 2013 and the 7DRL rogue likes that were rated by the challenge evaluation process. Unfortunately the list of Actively Developing Roguelikes is no longer maintained, so I instead included roguelikes listed on the last 6 months of posts on the roguelikes subreddit. This undoubtedly misses more rogue like releases than in previous years. I especially note that the Rogue Basin news section appears to be heavily biased against commercial releases - whereas the roguelikes subreddit is biased towards commercial releases so in summary it probably evens out. However, more eclectic releases will undoubtedly be missing from the list.
If there is a roguelike you want to vote for which is not on the list, please post in the comments and I will include your votes in the final totals.
What about 'x'? Why isn't it on the list?
Make sure you announced your roguelike on Rogue Basin for next year.
What about 'y'? Why is it on the list?
As roguelikes become more popular, the term is used to increasingly describe a broader type of game. This list has expanded to embrace that idea, but mostly to ensure that we don't miss any actual roguelikes. With this many entries, I'd rather be inclusive rather than exclusive, as I cannot possibly play every entry. You are free to not vote for a game if you don't consider it a roguelike.
What's the prize?
Pride. And a sexy logo - if you want one. You can see the winning 2007 logo on the Dwarf Fortress links page. Other winners are free to request them, but haven't done so. Logo designs for this year are welcome.
Having a competition is a dumb idea/offensive/stupid when you can't police the results.
Yep. Doesn't stop it being fun. You can vote for multiple different roguelikes. The idea here is that you will be encouraged to go out and download a roguelike that other people consider interesting, not that there is any kind of real competition element involved.