Category: conference call devdiaries

Final Post on this project, concluding many things. It’ll be quite short as I’ve the report next, and its mostly an update on rules and the game board.

Following the proposed changes to the map, these factors were added to it by Valeria! (I’m still amazed at her skill, I might have to steal her for some future projects.)
* Corridor room
* Entrance from Kitchen to Game Room
* Attic Room
* Rounds Counter

We believe the increase in rooms as well as the added entrance will allow Hunters to move more freely through the board. The rules have also been updated to take into account some of the faults we had in the previous version. It is using the shorter (Trini’s version) of the game!

The rules clarify that players can enter claimed/contaminated/ectoplasmed rooms. And the definition of a turn has also been updated to the new version.

Things we’d likely add/change with more time:
– A way to clear out rooms.
– Balance the ghosts and hunters’ adversity to be more balanced.

Conclusion:
The game is playable, and is a playable prototype. There are certain things that need balancing, such as the Hunter’s stalemate advantage, or the fact that Ghosts can blatantly claim a large amount of rooms from the get go, but that should be countered by the randomness and dynamic actions of the players.

We don’t have to deal with muting each other, which is a plus seeing as it helps with the cooperative/competitive aspect of the game, as well as the communal one. Its always better to hear your adversary rather than them being silent.

All in all, I had a lot of fun developing and improving my knowledge around prototyping these games, the conference call restriction was both refreshing and unexpected! Trini and Valeria were great help, and I couldn’t have done anything without them!

Going over the rules:
Our two different set of rules were based around strategic deliberation, or quick thinking and anticipating movements. We’ll dub both versions the longer and shorter versions for the sake of simplicity.

Playtesting the longer version:
* Ghosts deafen themselves. Hunters deliberate on positions.
* Hunters deafen themselves. Ghosts deliberate on positions.
* Both teams reveal positions, Hunters first, and then clashes are resolved accordingly.
* Ghosts can move anywhere on the map. Hunters can only move to a room adjacent to the one they are currently stood in. Both must move to another room on their next turn.
* In a stalemate (3 ghosts vs 3 hunters in the same room), Hunters win and the Ghosts are removed from the game.

Conclusions with this version!
* Boredom: The deafened team pretty much did nothing for quite a while, which led to loss of interest from that very team until it was there turn.
* Unseen advantages: The Ghosts could claim rooms immediately that Hunters cannot reach, which then forces Hunters to play with a smaller amount of rooms.
* Poor movement: The layout of the map inhibited the Hunter team from moving properly, adding another advantage to the Ghosts’ team.
* Too slow: it takes too long to deliberate, and lacks a quick resolution, sometimes making the game exceed the assignment’s time limit.

Playtesting the shorter version!
Trini came up with this one! Essentially the execution goes as fellows:
* Teams toss coin to determine who goes first, and move to their positions. They do so by typing their position in the chat at the same time as the rest of their team.
* Clashes are revealed on the end of the Hunter Team’s turn.
* Ghosts can move anywhere on the map. Hunters can only move to a room adjacent to the one they are currently stood in. Both must move to another room on their next turn.
* In a stalemate (3 ghosts vs 3 hunters in the same room), Hunters win and the Ghosts are removed from the game.

Conclusions with this version!
* Stalemates are still favorable to the Hunters, Ghosts may still claim 3 rooms before Hunters can do anything.
* Less strategic, more random and impromptu. This solves both the boredom and slowness of the previous game, by letting things become a bit more chaotic.
* Still the issue of movement for Hunters.

After playtesting with other members of the course, we decided that adding two additional rooms and a pathway to from the kitchen to the Game Room would grant Hunters sufficient an edge to go toe to toe with the other team. These are the proposed changes:

Final Thoughts on Session:
During playtesting, players expressed they prefered the shorter version as it gave more dynamics to the game, and I agree. It felt better are more reactive than the longer, more strategic version.

There was also talk of a way for Hunters to ‘unclaim’ rooms. These rooms had been claimed by Ghosts taking their turn to move towards it, so long as it wasn’t occupied by a Hunter. However we felt as if players didn’t understand that Hunters could enter already claimed rooms safely, rather than stay out of them. This could have prevented a number of Hunter losses during playtest so that’ll be improved later on.

Sadly, we couldn’t completely get rid of the Game Master, someone still needs to set up the board and note people’s placements down. The only way to properly get it replaced would be digitally.

Using the original sketch posted in the last entry, Valeria made one of the coolest game boards I’ve seen made for someone. The board keeps much of the original draft, and grants a Clue-like aesthetic to the whole game.

We changed the name from Trini’s Tactical Takedown to Ghosts vs Hunters, something that’s a bit more explicit and easier to say. It also sells the point of the game instantly, rather than something more obscure.

We discussed two things, afterwards, namely how we would execute the game’s concept. We had two ideas, with regards to movement.

• Free for all: all players involved go on their individual turns rather than as groups. This would allow for a progressive reveal of the game.
• Team by team: allows players of a same team to talk to one another and strategise properly, to avoid metagaming (using out of game knowledge to one’s advantage in a game scenario) the opposing team would have to be deafened.
• We all move at the same time: everybody thinks about their placement and announces it after a set amount of time.

EXTERNAL PLAYTEST:
Multiple issues have arisen from an external playtest with other course members. First of all, there needs to be a game master of some sort, to keep check of everybody’s movement. This is an issue as we’d very much like the game to play as fluidly as possible, and whilst this is something that could easily be solved through a page or so of code, a human ‘computer’ is still required.

This also brought another issue, which was the execution and flavour of the game. For a lot of the playtest “nothing really happened.” In a sense, the game was resolved and the mechanics worked but there was no FUN, no interesting dynamics. A way to resolve this was to include a game master, or find a way make more meaningful choices. For now it very much feels like sauceless pasta. Luke, one of those we playtested with, claimed that for now

CONCLUSION:
The game’s core concept is present, however we’re missing some of the more interactive aspects. Execution of the mechanics seems to require a “game master” to have them done properly, but even then the issue now is centric around the player being the game master, rather than the game’s pervasive interaction instead.

After some deliberation, Triny, Valeria & I came up with three versions of how the game might be played:

• Option 1: Everyone moves at the same time (w/ Arthur’s idea)
  Round starts with everyone secretly choosing where they want to go
  The ghosts reveal their desired location to the game master as the hunters mute/deafen their voice chat
  The hunters reveal their desired location to the game master as the ghosts mute/deafen their voice chat
  Everything is revealed at the same time
  (EVENTS OCCUR)
  Round finish and repeat

• Option 2: Team by team movement
  Hunters round starts with the hunters secretly choosing where they want to go (teams cannot discuss)
  The hunters type out their location at the same time, and the mansion owner marks down the new location of the hunters
  (EVENTS OCCUR)
  Ghost’s round starts where the ghosts type out their location at the same time, and the mansion owner marks the new location of the ghosts
  (EVENTS OCCUR)
  Back to hunters round and repeat

• Option 3: Individual Team Movement (how order is decided i’m not sure)
  A hunter chooses where they want to go and types it out
  They move to that location
  (EVENTS OCCUR)
  A ghost chooses where they want to go and types it out
  They move to that location
  (EVENTS OCCUR)
  Repeat with every player

♦Second post. 13/11/2020, 10:53.♦

So evidently its been quite a while since I last posted on here. All this to say the conference project’s gone on smoothly. I’ll be clarifying a few things I left out in the previous post, and then moving on to report and analyze what the team and I chose to execute for this project.

I mentioned that the game concept we had in mind was rather similar to Fall Guys’ Perfect Match. The concept of our original project was practically identical. Like Perfect Match, at the end of a round players choose a square to stand on. If they choose the wrong one, they fall to their deaths (or die in our case).

What separated our original project from Fall Guys’ mini-game was the manner of choice. Perfect Match makes players rush towards a square that bears a fruit identical to the fruit which is shown on screen. During the 10 second waiting period (1 round), every square shows a different fruit until the round ended, and players had to find the “perfect match”. (Its in the name.)

Our game was not as complex. A grid of 9 squares was presented. At the end of the round, players chose their placement on the grid. If more than two players were standing on that square, they lost a life and the square was eliminated from the game. That square is then eliminated from the game, and cannot be used later on. Conclusion: Similar in concept but different in execution.