Well, Disc Wars is my first board on WarGear, so hopefully it works out as well as I'm hoping it will once it's released.

Please feel free to test it using 2, 3 or 4 players & leave any/all feedback here.  Thanks!

To start a game:  http://www.wargear.net/games/create?boardid=917

To view the board: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/917/Board

To view design page: http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/917

Damn.

"This development board is not enabled for Public Beta."

Also, the 'bit' colors might still be a liiiittle close in some cases, depending on how your layers look. But the real crime is, no better blue than cyan? Yuck

Same message here.

Not sure about the error message. The little bug icon in my board design list is green & says it's enabled. I'll post it in the Support Area.

I'll work on adding another blue or two just for you asm. ;)

And maybe a darker orange?

OK. Check out those colors now & let me know if they still need adjusting.

Sweeper looks great. You're a peach!

I do try. ;)

Now to get rid of some of those bit colors....

BTW +a billion for providing links for starting, viewing and design in your post. Extra super bonus points for the pretty colors.

Alright guys. Tom said he fixed the Public Beta error, so feel free to start your own games & leave feedback here. I'm still having problems figuring out the right amount of units, so any suggestions on that are very welcome!

I started a public Beta game. (Which was fun - did not know such a thing was possible) Could only do 4 players though.

Amidon37 wrote: I started a public Beta game. (Which was fun - did not know such a thing was possible) Could only do 4 players though.

Yeah, I've switched it to where you have to play with 4 players because it didn't seem quite as challenging as a 2 player game.  I'm willing to switch it back to 2-4 players if people are interested in playing with fewer players.  I can't do more than 4, though, because it's a scenario-based board. 

StepOnMe wrote:

Well, Disc Wars is my first board on WarGear, so hopefully it works out as well as I'm hoping it will once it's released.

Please feel free to test it using 2, 3 or 4 players & leave any/all feedback here.  Thanks!

 

To start a game:  http://www.wargear.net/games/create?boardid=917

To view the board: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/917/Board

To view design page: http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/917

Released a new beta version, so here are the updated links for it.  Please please please leave feedback that'll help me make this board fun to play!  Thanks!

To start a game:  http://www.wargear.net/games/create?boardid=987

To view the board: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/987/Board

To view design page: http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/987

what changed step?

Step and I had an exchange on walls about the last test game.  I thought I would copy them here for all to see.  And to make a few comments.   

Amidon37 wrote: It's not going well. It's just not working. There doesn't seem to be any reason to do anything but attack an outer ring with a T and move in. Here is what I suggest trying: 1) Dramatically lower the starting units. Keep in mind people will get an initial bonus also. 2) No fog. (Personal preference, maybe that doesn't matter.) 3) Unlimited attacks. 4) Create an overlapping bonus structure that radiates out from the center of the ring. Something like the center is +1, center and first inner ring another +1, Center and first two inner rings are another +1, etc. out to the end. 5) Make the artillery attacks to the inner rings have an advantage with attacking. Try d8. 6) May want to have the starting units have more in the center and decrease out to the outer ring also. Then people will use the artillery attacks to soften up/take away the bonus of other players before going to the outer ring and moving in. (At least in theory.) I don't know if any of that will work or not, but that is what I have been thinking.

StepOnMe wrote:  Thanks for your thoughts. I'm currently working on adjusting some of the stuff you suggested, but here are my thoughts on them. #1 - Done deal, though I'm still not quite sure how much is too much or too little. So I may just keep adjusting as I go. #2 - I'm going to keep the fog setting as is, but I'll allow it to be changed by whoever creates a game. #3 - I'm not so sure about the unlimited attacks, though. My idea behind having 3 was based on the movie TRON, and I'm worried that if I make it unlimited players could sweep through without giving the other players a chance to play at all. #4 - As for the overlapping bonus structure, I've already created a hordes-style system for the rings, which should have been enabled during your guys' games. I was told putting any more bonuses than I already had was unnecessary and would probably be overwhelming, but I'll keep your idea in mind in case more bonuses are needed. #5 - I'll definitely adjust the artillery attacks. Those are still new to me, so I wasn't quite sure what else I could do with them especially to make them more appealing to use. #6 - Again, same idea behind #3 in that I'm afraid if I make the outter rings weaker by putting fewer starting units in them, a player will be able to plow through another player's rings (especially with unlimited attacks) and eliminate them before he/she has a chance to play. I may play around with this some more and see what works. Thanks again for your suggestions. I'll have these adjustments done later today if you're interested in starting another game.

Some additional comments:

I am backtracking on the unlimited attacks idea.  I actually watched the original Tron movie (not for the first time) a few weeks ago and think I know what you are going for.  At least I know the scene. 

For the bonuses, I don't think you understand what I am getting at.  I am suggesting you change your bonus structure so that that the bonuses radiate out from the center.  Right now there is no point in attacking inner rings from your disc - it's best to go to the outside and plow in, but if taking out someone's inner rings took away much of their bonus then that would be an incentive to attack inner rings.   

Amidon37 wrote:

For the bonuses, I don't think you understand what I am getting at.  I am suggesting you change your bonus structure so that that the bonuses radiate out from the center.  Right now there is no point in attacking inner rings from your disc - it's best to go to the outside and plow in, but if taking out someone's inner rings took away much of their bonus then that would be an incentive to attack inner rings.   

The only problem I can see with this suggestion - and I'm not knocking it out of the water completely since I value any & all feedback & since you've been very helpful so far - is that you can't actually capture anyone's inner rings (and thus break those bonuses) from your disc since those attacks are artillery only.  Retention is also on, so the player wouldn't actually lose control of those rings until someone moves in from the outer rings.  The reason I don't want to give a player the ability to capture an inner ring without moving in from the outer rings is because the discs are the capital cities, and to lose your capital city means you'd lose.

However, there are a couple of options that might work.

I could change it around to where players have the option to capture their opponents' inner rings, but I would probably have to add modifiers to discourage them from going directly to the inner rings every time to capture the disc and eliminate players that much faster.

Another option would be to turn off retention, thus enabling players to break their opponents' inner ring bonuses using the artillery attacks (if I understand it correctly).  But that would require the other players to use their 3 limited attacks to capture those rings back, thus giving the first 2 players the biggest advantage.  So if I were to go with this option, I would probably have to remove the attack modifiers that I added to the artillery attacks.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

i think just adjusting to have maybe 4 attacks (no more than 5 for reasons that you've already mentioned) would work that out. as it is with 3 you can't get to the inner ring in less than 3 attacks, plus defending your own. so i'd try a few games with 4 attacks and see if that helps.

Alright. I'll test it out with 4 attacks and see how it plays.

I was thinking that you could have "abandoned territories resort to neutral" turned on then an artillery attack would be able to take away an opponents ring, but not allow the attacker to move in. (At least I think things can be set that way.)

Or perhaps to have the artillery attacks have a bonus, then using them them weaken the inner rings before moving in would give people a reason to attack the inner rings.

Yeah, I've given the artillery attacks a slight attack advantage, but I don't know if that will be enough to entice players to use them.

I'm still hesitant to take off retention simply because once you lose a ring, you'd have to use one or more of your attacks, which are already limited (to 4 currently), in order to gain it back.

What if I increased the inner rings' defense just slightly to where it'd be more beneficial for a player to attack from the disc first, then move in from the outer rings? In other words, I use an artillery attack from my disc to attack your Ring 4 & reduce your units to a minimal amount. Then I attack your Ring 5 & capture it, moving into Ring 4 on my next attack since I've already reduced your units with the artillery enough to where I should be able to capture it from Ring 5 despite Ring 4 having a slight defense advantage. Hope this makes to sense to somebody else! :/