{"id":175,"date":"2017-08-07T18:04:54","date_gmt":"2017-08-07T18:04:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/?p=175"},"modified":"2017-08-07T18:04:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T18:04:54","slug":"nyet-another-game-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/nyet-another-game-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Nyet Another Game Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

About a year ago, I purchased the game Nyet!<\/em> from my local game store. I was interested in creating a trick-taking game that used a lot of the team communication strategies from Bridge in a more simple way, and noticed Nyet! <\/em>did something similar to what I was looking into. I played several games among different game groups and found it quite fun; one friend in particular, who had a history in semi-competitive Bridge, grew quite fond of it.<\/p>\n

However, one major problem in the endgame raised some questions with me. What\u2019s the problem? Can it be resolved in a way that keeps the spirit of the game intact? Is it even worth solving? Read on to find out.<\/p>\n

Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nyet! <\/em>is a simple, cozy game reminiscent of two retired generals arguing over the composition of the perfect lunch. Rounds are divided into two phases, where the second phase is a conventional team trick-taking game. What sets the game apart is its unique first phase, where each player uses a central grid to determine the rules and value of the round. In this section, players decide how many points each trick is worth (including the delightful setting of having tricks be worth negative points), which suits are strong, rules about discarding cards, and even who gets to be on whose team. Players can only individually decide which rules won\u2019t<\/em> appear, eventually reaching something via process of elimination; thus, the name of the game being Nyet!<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This grid segment itself is quite brilliant, and only one small part of it leads to the issues in the endgame: The fact that players change teams every round. Thus, each round, players will accumulate the same number of points as the other players on their team, but at the end of the game they will have different scores and win or lose as individuals. This, in itself, is pretty reasonable.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what makes this a problem: The game ends after a set number of rounds. If you can\u2019t see the issue, I\u2019ll use an example:<\/p>\n

It is the last round of a friendly game of Nyet!. Yelena has 67 points, Astrov has 66, Sonya has 56, and Uncle Vanya has 40. During the first phase, Yelena places herself and Astrov on one team, and Sonya and Uncle Vanya on the other team.<\/em><\/p>\n

Despite having the second-highest score up to this point, Astrov is now mathematically eliminated from winning. No matter how well his team does, Yelena will have one more point than him at the end of the game. Uncle Vanya has also been eliminated because he has fewer points than his teammate Sonya. Sonya, despite being in third at the moment, is the only player who has a chance of beating Yelena because of the team composition.<\/em><\/p>\n

In short, the team composition of the last round in Nyet!<\/em> invalidates a lot of the rest of the game.<\/p>\n

Solutions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now that we know what the problem is, what solutions are available?<\/p>\n

The obvious offender is the fact that the game ends after a certain number of rounds. There\u2019s a number of ways you can change the endgame condition while still maintaining the game\u2019s fuctional mechanics: The easiest would be to have the game end once a player or players reach a certain number of points.<\/p>\n

This would improve the problem, but not fix it completely. If we\u2019re still interested in determining a single winner through a game of Nyet!<\/em>, say, by having the player with the highest score win after someone hits the threshold, the problem still exists that the lower-scoring players on a team are 100% shut out of winning.<\/p>\n

Alternatively, instead of having a set end round, you could have it partially randomized. As an example, you could have one card marking the game end in a deck of blank ones; you then shuffle them and draw one each round after a predetermined number of rounds have passed. This solves the problem a little, but it\u2019s still pretty clumsy and could drag the game to unfun lengths.<\/p>\n

We could also weigh player position so that you gain more points by being on a team with a player with more points, but this would add an element of player politics that doesn\u2019t mesh with the intent of the design. Players are supposed to form teams based on the percieved strength of each others\u2019 hands more than what arbitrary benefit they gain from a previous round.<\/p>\n

Perhaps The Best Solution<\/strong><\/p>\n

There\u2019s one central problem with all of these proposed solutions, and one that would be surprisingly easy to fix within the context of the game. The problem: People know what everyone\u2019s scores are, and therefore know when they\u2019re bound to lose.<\/p>\n

The solution, then? Hide everyone\u2019s scores<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This technique has worked in more complicated games like Small World<\/em> to prevent people from ganging up on the first place player. In Nyet!<\/em>, scores are pretty complicated, and unless you really wanted to remember everyone\u2019s totals, hidden scores would be fairly easy to achieve. This way, even if you are mathematically eliminated in the final round, you wouldn\u2019t know<\/em>, and you could continue to enjoy a pleasant final round.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll notice that this doesn\u2019t solve the strategy of the game in any way, especially if you\u2019re playing with a group of people who love to count cards and whatnot. The thing is, this fix is not aimed at an unsuitable game; it\u2019s aimed at an unsuitable play experience.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

My experiment in trying to fix Nyet!<\/em>\u2019s endgame made me reflect on my own experiences finding imperfections in my work. Sometimes, when designing a game, you\u2019ll find a problem that you can\u2019t solve without uprooting something else that makes your game special. And sometimes, the best you can do is try to paste over the problem in a way that will bother your players the least.<\/p>\n

We\u2019d all like to be perfect designers who make seamless, elegant systems, but in the end, as long as the game is challenging and fun, it\u2019s okay if it has some clunky elements. Some problems are beyond our ability to solve, but it\u2019s important to do your best anyway.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, if you can think of a better way to solve the problem, please let me know on social media or by e-mail or something.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

About a year ago, I purchased the game Nyet! from my local game store. I was interested in creating a trick-taking game that used a lot of the team communication strategies from Bridge in a more simple way, and noticed Nyet! did something similar to what I was looking into. I played several games among different game groups and found it quite fun; one friend in particular, who had a history in semi-competitive Bridge, grew quite fond of it. However, one major problem in the endgame raised some questions with me. What\u2019s the problem? Can it be resolved in a way that keeps the spirit of the game intact? Is it even worth solving? Read on to find out. Overview Nyet! is a simple, cozy game reminiscent of two retired generals arguing over the composition of the perfect lunch. Rounds are divided into two phases, where the second phase is a conventional team trick-taking game. What sets the game apart is its unique first phase, where each player uses a central grid to determine the rules and value of the round. In this section, players decide how many points each trick is worth (including the delightful setting of having tricks be worth negative points), which suits are strong, rules about discarding cards, and even who gets to be on whose team. Players can only individually decide which rules won\u2019t appear, eventually reaching something via process of elimination; thus, the name of the game being Nyet!. This grid segment itself is quite brilliant, and only one small part of it leads to the issues in the endgame: The fact that players change teams every round. Thus, each round, players will accumulate the same number of points as the other players on their team, but at the end of the game they will have different scores and win or lose as individuals. This, in itself, is pretty reasonable. Here\u2019s what makes this a problem: The game ends after a set number of rounds. If you can\u2019t see the issue, I\u2019ll use an example: It is the last round of a friendly game of Nyet!. Yelena has 67 points, Astrov has 66, Sonya has 56, and Uncle Vanya has 40. During the first phase, Yelena places herself and Astrov on one team, and Sonya and Uncle Vanya on the other team. Despite having the second-highest score up to this point, Astrov is now mathematically eliminated from winning. No matter how well his team does, Yelena will have one more point than him at the end of the game. Uncle Vanya has also been eliminated because he has fewer points than his teammate Sonya. Sonya, despite being in third at the moment, is the only player who has a chance of beating Yelena because of the team composition. In short, the team composition of the last round in Nyet! invalidates a lot of the rest of the game. Solutions Now that we know what the problem is, what solutions are available? The obvious offender is the fact that the game ends after a certain number of rounds. There\u2019s a number of ways you can change the endgame condition while still maintaining the game\u2019s fuctional mechanics: The easiest would be to have the game end once a player or players reach a certain number of points. This would improve the problem, but not fix it completely. If we\u2019re still interested in determining a single winner through a game of Nyet!, say, by having the player with the highest score win after someone hits the threshold, the problem still exists that the lower-scoring players on a team are 100% shut out of winning. Alternatively, instead of having a set end round, you could have it partially randomized. As an example, you could have one card marking the game end in a deck of blank ones; you then shuffle them and draw one each round after a predetermined number of rounds have passed. This solves the problem a little, but it\u2019s still pretty clumsy and could drag the game to unfun lengths. We could also weigh player position so that you gain more points by being on a team with a player with more points, but this would add an element of player politics that doesn\u2019t mesh with the intent of the design. Players are supposed to form teams based on the percieved strength of each others\u2019 hands more than what arbitrary benefit they gain from a previous round. Perhaps The Best Solution There\u2019s one central problem with all of these proposed solutions, and one that would be surprisingly easy to fix within the context of the game. The problem: People know what everyone\u2019s scores are, and therefore know when they\u2019re bound to lose. The solution, then? Hide everyone\u2019s scores. This technique has worked in more complicated games like Small World to prevent people from ganging up on the first place player. In Nyet!, scores are pretty complicated, and unless you really wanted to remember everyone\u2019s totals, hidden scores would be fairly easy to achieve. This way, even if you are mathematically eliminated in the final round, you wouldn\u2019t know, and you could continue to enjoy a pleasant final round. You\u2019ll notice that this doesn\u2019t solve the strategy of the game in any way, especially if you\u2019re playing with a group of people who love to count cards and whatnot. The thing is, this fix is not aimed at an unsuitable game; it\u2019s aimed at an unsuitable play experience. Conclusion My experiment in trying to fix Nyet!\u2019s endgame made me reflect on my own experiences finding imperfections in my work. Sometimes, when designing a game, you\u2019ll find a problem that you can\u2019t solve without uprooting something else that makes your game special. And sometimes, the best you can do is try to paste over the problem in a way that will bother your players the least. We\u2019d all like to be perfect designers who make seamless, elegant systems, but in the end, as long as the game is challenging and fun, it\u2019s okay if it has some clunky elements. Some problems are beyond our ability to solve, but it\u2019s important to do your best anyway. Incidentally, if you can think of a better way to solve the problem, please let me know on social media or by e-mail or something.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175\/revisions\/176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.phantomknightgames.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}