I'd like more flexibility with card scales.  Specifically I'd like the ability to have an increasing card scale that increases by less than 1 a turn.  For example: 4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,...  In maps with many players, even a +1 per turn-in can get card set values very high very quickly.  Too quickly.  I'd also like to be able to have a card scale increment to a certain point, and then level off.  For example: 4,5,6,...38,39,40,40,40,40,...

Both of these could be accomplished fairly simply.  The first, by having some fractional values for 'Increment' (probably just 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 would be plenty).   The second by having negative 'ramp amounts'.

Tom - if you see this post, maybe you could tell me if the engine would currently support these values?  If I just put them in by hand into the XML, even though the designer interface doesn't have them, would it work?  If so, that is good enough for me.

I actually originally wrote a post asking for a more general system, but deleted it in favor of getting something simpler done sooner.

But, since you brought it up... How would a general system work.  I can think of a couple ways.

1. Series Formula based.  The mapmaker defines a formula with a variable k in it.  k is the # of sets of cards that have been previously turned in.  So for first set k is 0, then 1, etc.  Some examples:

k+4 = 4,5,6,7,8...

2*k+4 = 4,6,8,10,12,...

4+2*(k%4) = 4,6,8,10,4,6,8,10.

k/2 + 4 = 4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,...

Tom would have to write a prefix notation calculator parser, which I'm sure he is capable of, but is still not a simple task.  Plus if you just allow the operatiosn +,-,*,/,% I'm not sure if that gives enough flexibility. Can you do something like my example where cards increase to 40 and then plateau?  I'm not sure.

So back to the drawing board.  My next thought was a kind of piece-wise representation.  Pairs of numbers that give a 'trigger value' and then a 'delta value'.  Here's a simple example:

4,2 = 4,6,8,10,12,14,...

Basically you start at the first #, and increment each time by the second #.

Some other examples:

4,1 = 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,...

4,.5 = 4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,...

If more than one trigger/delta pair is given, it means that when cards reach that new trigger, the new delta is used.  So:

4,2,10,-6  gives you the standard 4,6,8,10,4,6,8,10,...

You can also easily get that plateau:

4,1,40,0 = 4,5,6,7,...38,39,40,40,40,40,...

You can do other neat stuff too.  A card scale that oscillates, with no big discrete jumps:

4,1,10,-1 = 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,5,6,7,8,...

One thing  that would be more difficult with this is to hit the same # in a sequence, but then have the next # be something different. For example, I think this scale would be impossible:

4,5,6,7,8,9,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,...

You could get close though:

4,1,10,-1,3,2 = 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,5,7,9,11,13,...

It seems to me the second system is more flexible and simpler.  Any other suggestions or improvements?

I had thought that allowing negative and 0 increments along with two reset/ramp values would be enough - which is your second suggestion, but then you went further with 3 rest/ramp values.  I don't think taking it that far is necessary -

I do like your ones like 4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,.. though and think that would be cool.  Not sure the best way to implement it - maybe have a "change card value counter" that increments every n turn-ins.  The default is 1, but have it changeable -

I do like your ones like 4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,.. though and think that would be cool.  Not sure the best way to implement it - maybe have a "change card value counter" that increments every n turn-ins.  The default is 1, but have it changeable

I think it's simpler just to allow fractional increments that are tracked behind the scenes, but don't show up until they reach the next integer.  The way you describe would work to, but would require another drop down.

Good point about just allowing a second rest/ramp as a simpler way instead of having unlimited rest/ramp pairs.

The fractional increment and negative ramp are easyish to do. I've added them to the new version of the Designer but they are not implemented in the game code or database yet so it's not advisable to try this via the XML.

That's great.  Thanks Tom.  Can't wait for the update!

tom wrote:

The fractional increment and negative ramp are easyish to do. I've added them to the new version of the Designer but they are not implemented in the game code or database yet so it's not advisable to try this via the XML.

Any idea when this will be available?  One of my released maps I think would benefit from this, and I am anxious to try it out.

Just noticed this is now available in the designer!  I assume it is ok to use it?

Sorry not yet, it doesn't work on the back end. I'll try and get it done this week.

oh darn.  Getting my hopes up... Thanks anyway, Tom.

I hope you guys can implement a system where the card scales can be adjusted for any board! My group likes to play 4/6/8/10, as we tend to have huge games and once the headshots start its all over very quickly with escalating cards.

I don't know about all maps. Some of these boards are designed very carefully, with very complex mechanics, and the choice of cards is usually the one that leads to best play. (In theory, and often in practice, they test these things in advance.)

There are boards that I feel would play better (i.e. more how I want to play - violently), if the designer chose different cards.

My guess is that it's been suggested that, like fog, maybe the designer can have an option to leave the choice of cards up to the user.

Hugh wrote:

My guess is that it's been suggested that, like fog, maybe the designer can have an option to leave the choice of cards up to the user.

Yeah, I think increasing the ability for the map designer to include more flexibility is a good idea.

Other than that though, you can always PM the map designer & ask for a scenario more to your liking.  Creating a new scenario with a card sale is a 5 minute job, so many designers would be up for it if they thought your desired card scale would work ok.

Yes, designers are generally very responsive to thoughtful feedback! Usually we suffer from far too little...

Kjeld wrote:

Yes, designers are generally very responsive to thoughtful feedback! Usually we suffer from far too little...

Your boards are awesome.

Ozyman wrote:

oh darn.  Getting my hopes up... Thanks anyway, Tom.

Actually I ran some tests and it looks like it works fine already. Give it a go, let me know if you see any problems!

Fantastic!  I will be away from my computer for the next week, but I'll give it a shot once I get back.  I'll let you know how it works out.