|
|
Post by Citanest on Jan 23, 2009 12:00:43 GMT -5
I'm probably not the only person who thinks Warlocks is one of the hardest games to learn how to play (i.e. how to actually play a game through to completion). I noticed on boardgamegeek the suggestion that a newbie, 'introductory' version of the game would help beginners to grasp the fundamentals of the game.
How do people think this could look?
I would suggest something along the lines of
- Single handed
- Smaller spellbook
- Spell reference visible all the time
- Coloured spellflows to highlight spells cast, with a neon colour to highlight overlapping gestures
My suggestion for a noob-restricted spell list
Shield
Magic Missile
WWS Counter
Amnesia
Fear
Charm Person
Goblin
Cause Light Wounds
Lighting Bolt
Obviously a single handed game with only the above spells would be entirely pointless for someone who gets the game, but it should serve to let a person understand the basics who might otherwise be put off by complexity. Maybe some spells could be created just for the purpose of making a simple, single hand duel work.
Opinions anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by wastelin on Jan 23, 2009 12:57:31 GMT -5
Interesting concept.
I think a one-handed approach would lose the basic complexity/interest that having 2 hands has. Plus you'd need programming effort. Writing a one-handed string, say DPPSDFWFPSFWPPws is as complex as playing it. But the colors suggestion and the limited spell list options are good ones. I tell my apprentices not to enter > or C in our initial games, for instance, but a limited spell list may also be a good idea.
You could perhaps write out something like this (not that the non-capital letters are purposely at the end for teaching purposes):
DPPSDFWFPSFWPPws
111
XX2222
XXX33X
XXXX444
XXXXXX555
XXXXXX666666
XXXXXXXXXXX777
XXXXXXXXXXXX8888
You could also talk about the option to go into lightning bolt from the PSDF, Blindness instead of cause light if you take 2 hands into account, the option to dummy dpp into dps, invisibility at the end, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by boomfrog on Jan 23, 2009 23:02:01 GMT -5
Honestly if you just installed a read out of all possible spells castable from the current gestures, for both player. directly into the game screen it would save millions of headaches and anguished cries. that would be easier to implement the colored spellflow I'd imagine. Something like www.itloesungen.de/cgi-bin/Fm.cgiHowever, assuming that we are going to do something that doesn't require more programing, then we could only implement a limited spell book, and possibly limit play to one hand. But I really think using two hands is half the points of the game at least. Playing one handed would be like learning to play chess with only the pawns and king. (wait, actually that might work...) Talking about dummying a spell, and options of where to go with a spellflow is not the part of the game noobs have trouble with. They have trouble evaluating where their opponent is going and realizing where they can go. If you know what your options are then you can play and learn the game, but noobs don't even know what they can do and what their opponent can do each turn. I really think the above tool I linked should just be mandatory for all noobs, put your own moves and your opponents into the evaluator every turn, it helps a ton. P.S. I am disappointed that this thread did not contain any rules about teleporting... |
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Jan 23, 2009 23:10:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Jan 24, 2009 3:24:41 GMT -5
Ah, I think my core message wasn't put across. Certainly Wastelin's issues with learning how to dummy, and Boomfrog's point about learning how to evaluate your opponent are important; but I was talking even more basic than that. This Portal Warlocks would be to help people who you could, in RL, have an intelligent conversation with, but begin their first turn "-/C" and appear to be dim-wits. It would be meant to teach the rules to the newbie, like how to submit gestures and what it means to cast a spell. Once these have been understood, moving to 2 hands and gesture evaluators would be the next (far easier) step. I brought up this topic because it seems the Warlocks population is at pretty much an all time low- around 75 with a significant number of alt_ players. It used to hover around the 100 mark. If the game was only more accessible to first-timers I'm sure it would help. Imagine how much cooler the game would be if we had a 1000+ active warlocks.... P.S. I am disappointed that this thread did not contain any rules about teleporting... Got you to read it though, didn't I?  |
|
|
|
Post by wastelin on Jan 24, 2009 3:46:33 GMT -5
Ok, so you're basically saying that you want to fixd the population low, and you want to tackle the point that the (initial) learning curve of warlords is too hard for newplayers?
Sounds like you need to join GBA.
More seriously, the size of the active population is based in inflow, time of retention, and outflow. If we assume that time of retention and outflow are things that we do not really want to control (other than being an interesting, lively, talkative population) and we don't want to change the game, then inflow is the thing.
So do we want a lot of new entrants, where some stick around, or are we satisfied with the rate of entrants, but just want to keep them?
In that latter case, I'd suggest: make more entry documentation (and tools, like Boomfrog says) and USE (MUCH MORE)
SCREENSHOTS with documentation. With actual play, preferrably.
And link / incorporate all the helper tools as well.
If you really want to 'grow' the population as well: advertise (not commercially: we just need to start letting lots of places now, actively recruit people, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Jan 24, 2009 4:54:26 GMT -5
Ok, so you're basically saying that you want to fixd the population low, and you want to tackle the point that the (initial) learning curve of warlords is too hard for newplayers? Yes. I think it may be the most significant factor in keeping numbers low. Bear in mind though that I'm all talk, this thread is hypothetical. Sounds like you need to join GBA. No, I only want them there to pound on. |
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 24, 2009 6:18:38 GMT -5
No, I only want them there to pound on. I gotta say, when the xkcd crew came on board, it was excellent fun. Not only was there a truck load of smack to lay down, but there was also a handful of excellent players to come on board (hi Mak! Boom!) Perhaps we need to put the word out to "intelligent" places on the internet? |
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Jan 24, 2009 9:00:39 GMT -5
It definitely isn't an all-time low, though it does seem to be a low. The active population was even lower in early 2006 before the 2006 tournament and accompanying spam. Possibly also at other times, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by wastelin on Jan 24, 2009 14:32:17 GMT -5
Ok, so you're basically saying that you want to fixd the population low, and you want to tackle the point that the (initial) learning curve of warlords is too hard for newplayers? Yes. I think it may be the most significant factor in keeping numbers low. Bear in mind though that I'm all talk, this thread is hypothetical. Seems like an exercise in futility then. Why not take it to the next level? Futile, and self-defeating. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Jan 24, 2009 15:31:15 GMT -5
Here are some excerpts from a discussion about this game on another forum which I think are relevant:
The main complaints were about the slow speed rather than the learning curve.
|
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Jan 24, 2009 17:07:39 GMT -5
I joined on after hearing about it from the xkcd people and was able to pick up the way the game flowed after the first couple of spells. the problem that i encountered is when you first fill up the games you can have and must wait on other people. however that's really not a problem with the game so much as a lack of patience in the player, nor is that something that can be fixed while also keeping the flexibility of when you can play the game (I play at work in between customers and other random things to do). It would be all well and good to have a real-time version of the game; but you can do that on a couple different of servers or with the spellbinder(/weaver/caster/whatever it's called) app. As far as targeting and such with the drop-down boxes: every time you play a new game you have to learn a new HUD, why not this one? the scroll option could be taken out of the drop-downs so you don't accidentally change something; or even automatically put in the default target so you can see it, but those are not really things that are major impediments to someone learning the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Feb 13, 2009 13:20:59 GMT -5
If messing up targets is a problem, here's a vague (and undoubtedly un-implementable, but these are hypotheses, right?) idea.
You could have a "newbie" checkbox (only accessible for VFs) when you create/accept a game. Then after each turn it warns you about targets and whatnot (like the "Really submit no gestures?" warning)
e.g. 1 after a summon "You have selected Slartucker as the target. This means he will control the [monster] and can make it attack you."
e.g. 2. "You have selected default target on your left hand. This spell will default to you/[opponentname]/a random opponent [for melee]."
e.g. 3. You could possibly do the same thing for spells? I'm unsure as to whether that'd be a good idea or not.
If you don't think limiting to VFs is enough it could also only be available for your first X games or your first X ELO (or whichever happens first).
It would also be a bit of an issue for charm/para when default target was selected, but you could simply preface the usual warning with "If your foo hand isn't charmed/paralysed..." if you didn't want it to get too complicated. The tool's meant to be for just learning the basics, after all.
|
|
