Note de ce sujet :
  • Moyenne : 0 (0 vote(s))
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Keyforge, le nouveau jeu de Garfield
#1
Plop !

Alors là, attention, concept qui tue !

D'abord la boite et quelques visuels :

[Image: kf01_anc_spread.png]

[Image: kf01_pp_cardfan.png]


Et le concept de ouf (copié collé de TT)

"Celui ci fait quelque chose de jamais vu auparavant:
Chaque deck est unique en terme de carte Archon,et de combinaisons de cartes.
Oui vous avez bien lu,quand vous achetez un deck,vous êtes le seul possesseur de ce deck.
Ajoutons le fait que chaque deck a son propre dos de cartes,et vous avez un jeu ou chacun joue avec un deck qui n'existe pas ailleurs,et dont les cartes ne sont pas modifiables pour ceux que j'en ai compris.
Ils annoncent 104,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinaisons de decks rien que dans ce premier set de cartes. !"

Alors là, j'avoue, ça titille grave !
Répondre
#2
Un lien vers les règles : Keyforge

Au niveau des originalités marquantes, on notera l'importance de la position des bestioles sur le plateau : des effets toucheront les "voisins" de la cible, d'autres seront plus fortes si elles sont aux extrémités des emplacements possibles.

Voilà comment cela va se présenter :

[Image: keyforge-932x620.jpg]
Répondre
#3
Hé hé, je suis à fond sur ce prochain jeu ^^

Voici une intervention de Sieur Garfield sur Boardgamegeek concernant le système de création de deck par la machine.

"I can't go into details, but the construction algorithm does reject decks and do small amounts of construction. In balancing the goals of variety against playability (both too powerful and too weak) we tried to cut as few decks as possible, but we did cut some. More often than too powerful or too weak was 'not fun', it is not fun to get a card that refers to Robots and then have no robots in your deck - or even just have one.

There absolutely will be a range of powers with the decks, it would be arrogant to think we could identify algorithmically true power of a deck - and it would undermine one of the things I love most about games - that they are bigger than the designer - the players get better than the designers, and later players get better than earlier players. This means 'balance' is always a moving target.

A couple examples to illustrate that - in very early magic there was a powerful deck engine based on a card Necropotence - and lots of call that it get banned. We chose not to and the world championship was very exciting because some players brought out a secret weapon - the Stasis Deck - which disrupted the status quo. We as designers did not know there was a solution, but we knew that games are very very complex, and we didn't want to deprive the players the ultimate achievement of solving that problem. 

A second illustration comes from an electronic game I worked on, Spectromancer. In that there were classes you bought and one free class - cleric. There were many complaints that cleric was the worst class - which we were pretty sure wasn't true, but the natural result of it being free. We chose that character to be free not because it was weak but because it was flexible and showed the variety the game offered. We did an analysis and found that indeed for beginners Cleric was slightly underpowered, for Intermediate it was quite underpowered and for expert it was actually a favored deck. In retrospect this was predictable - flexibility is almost always skill testing, and allows players to make bad decisions as well as good. Similarly a deck coveted by beginners - the Necromancer - was powerful against beginners and intermediates but underpowered against experienced players. Experts knew how to avoid the traps the Necromancer laid.

There is no one balance - intermediates and beginners are all players as well, and experts today become outdated tomorrow. 

Instead of the goal to make decks fair, I took the goal as making as many decks as possible playable and fun against each other - meaning that of the three major factors in a matchup - player skill, deck quality, and variance - deck quality rarely dominates (meaning regardless of skill or luck your chances to win against it are minimal). And most matchups it will be a long time before the favored deck is known and the advantage should be small.

As players get better at evaluating the deck powers there are many tools for making games fair - the handicapping system of chains is one, but switching decks and for very experienced players - bidding chains are others.

Personally - my son and I (he is a very good player) like to take underperforming decks and try to beat each other with it. It is sometimes tough but we find a lot of glory to taking down a more powerful deck, and sometimes the techniques used can change the relative performance. If we wanted to play 'fair' we would bid - or choose two decks that are close in performance, which we do sometimes as well."
Répondre
#4
Mince j'avais pas vu...c'est intriguant!!

Du coup pas de deckbuilding ?
Répondre
#5
Et non, pas de deckbuilding, tu joues avec le deck que tu achètes, sans rien pouvoir changer, et pis c'est tout ^^
Répondre
#6
Ça m’arrange je suis nul en deck building ^^
Répondre
#7
Pour ma part, je n'ai plus le temps. Magic bouffe tout mon budget deckbuilding ^^

J'avais Ashes comme autre jeu de cartes, que j'aimais vraiment beaucoup, et mon fils aussi, mais j'ai revendu car je n'ai pas le temps de builder des decks sympa et les préconstruits n'étaient pas équilibrés... Trop de figs à peindre, faut faire des choix :/

Du coup ce nouveau concept me plait beaucoup.
Répondre
#8
Y'a ça de prévue à Vienne..me tâte à y aller.

[Image: 44823253_2216404681929115_56316228758499...e=5C52523E]
Répondre
#9
Ca peut être sympa en soirée ça Smile
Répondre
#10
J'ai vérifié mes dispo, je peux y être pour le tournoi.

Faudrait que je me pointe avant pour la démo et voir comment on joue...

Possible que mon fils soit présent. On prendrait du coup la boite de base direct avec les 2 decks "hasard" dedans Smile
Répondre


Atteindre :


Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce sujet : 1 visiteur(s)