Game: Car Tricks

Image

short_wol — 2008-10-05T18:40:45+00:00

Homemade cars made from cork tile and cardboard

Image

mcross — 2006-10-09T06:05:57+00:00

Print and play -- easy to follow rules

Image

mcross — 2006-10-09T05:58:10+00:00

The race is on...

Image

mcross — 2006-10-09T05:56:27+00:00

Print and play board

Image

mcross — 2006-10-09T05:54:47+00:00

Print and play -- special cards

Image

mcross — 2006-10-09T05:54:35+00:00

Laminated cards

Image

gnomehome — 2005-06-28T19:43:06+00:00

My home made copy of Car Tricks

Thread: Re:User Review

ngkabra — 2005-02-09T08:20:52+00:00

Hi Nick,
One thing you should consider is changing the description of the scoring system so that the average user intuitively "gets it". For example, something like:

For each of the six cars, find the difference between its actual position and the position you had predicted, and square it (i.e. multiply it by itself). The sum of all these values is your score. The person with the lowest score wins the game.

Taking the example from your scorebook.

[c]
Predicted Actual Difference Square Points
Position Position
3 4 1 1 1
1 1 0 0 0
5 2 3 9 9
4 3 1 1 1
2 5 3 9 9
6 6 0 0 0

Total points 20
[/c]

This will produce exactly the same results as your scoring system, but has the added advantage that the players know exactly what is going on.

Thread: Re:User Review

RPardoe — 2004-12-06T03:54:16+00:00

Hi Nick,

Here is the abridged version:

(1) The scoring system penalizes a fixed number of points per position missed. It does not matter which position was missed; the penalty points are the same.

(2) Getting the first place car correct is just as important as getting the last place car correct.

In other words - what you intuitively thought about your scoring system is indeed happening.

- Rich

Thread: Re:User Review

Nick Danger — 2004-12-06T00:15:02+00:00

Hi Richard,

I really wish I could discuss something about the above with you, but quite honestly it's miles above my head.

And no you weren't that harsh on me at all, I actually enjoyed the discussion. Well, at least the parts I could comprehend!

- Nick

Thread: Re:User Review

RPardoe — 2004-12-03T04:10:40+00:00

Nick Danger (#68724),

Gee, I didn't think I was that harsh on you, but rather just probing your thoughts behind the mechanism. In the end, I believe we both gained in our understanding of the scoring system and having it tested just a bit.

For the benefit of others, I actually generated each permutation of possible scores and tried to analyze the results.

The mistake most people make is to give "1 miss point" per position missed. In other words, predicting 1st but finishing 3rd should be worth twice as much as predicting 1st but finishing 2nd.

But Nick's scoring method is a bit more progressive with an increasing penalty scale the further one is from the prediciton. It is more useful to think of penalty points deducted from a perfect score of 91 for misses. Let me quote from one of the e-mails I wrote to Nick:

...if you are curious, your scoring system actually has the following system in play:

Missing by one position - 0.5 penalty point per position
Missing by two positions - 1.0 penalty points per position
Missing by three positions - 1.5 penalty points per position
Missing by four positions - 2.0 penalty points per position
Missing by five positions - 2.5 penalty points per position

I won't bore you with the details of how this is derived (but if curious, I regressed the penalty points against a count of positions missed)...but can share the following verbal explanations to help you realize the validity of the values...

One can't miss one car by one position. The best is 2 cars by one position each. This lowers the score from a perfect 91 to 90 regardless of pair picked. Therefore, each missed position is worth 0.5 points...1 penalty point divided by the (1 position missed x 2 cars).

One can do similar examples of the other positions....Missing 2 cars by 2 positions lowers the score from 91 to 87. Therefore each position picked is worth 4 penalty points divided by the 4 positions missed

etc. etc.

Missing 2 cars by 5 positions lowers the score from 91 to 66 for 25 penalty points. Therefore, each position missed is worth 2.5 (25 divided by 5 positions for each of 2 cars). So your "guess" of 0.25 wasn't all that bad. (Note: Nick guessed at a penalty of 0.25 per position missed without doing any rigourous math. As the table above shows, the actual penalty is 0.5 per position missed.)

Using the scale above, you can now also understand your position that missing 4 cars by 1 position each is better than missing 2 cars by 2 positions. The first is only 2 penalty points while the second is 4 penalty points.

What is more interesting is not to look at the penalty points by position, but rather looking at the total penalty points for such a miss:

Missing by one position - 0.5 penalty point per miss
Missing by two positions - 2.0 penalty points per miss
Missing by three positions - 4.5 penalty points per miss
Missing by four positions - 8.0 penalty points per miss
Missing by five positions - 12.5 penalty points per miss

As you can see, it is a rapidly increasing scale, which makes a lot more sense if you consider the "minimum" miss at any position involves 2 cars, so double the above points:

Missing by one position - 1 penalty point per 2 cars
Missing by two positions - 4 penalty points per 2 cars
Missing by three positions - 9 penalty points per 2 cars
Missing by four positions - 16 penalty points per 2 cars
Missing by five positions - 25 penalty points per 2 cars

as you can see, it is the progression of natural squares. Not unsurprising as you derive the scores by multiplying two numbers. OK, OK, I hear your brain cells tuning out....

Back to the chart of penalty points per miss, you can now see why missing more cars by less positions is better. It is very easy to mix/match lots of little numbers and never add up to the next level of the chart. For example, missing 1 car by 3 and 3 cars by 1 is worth only 6 penalty points which is still way below a single 4 position miss. For this reason, the game appears to be driven by the "biggest miss" at a first pass. A lot of smaller misses don't add up to the single biggest miss. Yes, there are some examples where if you add/subtract you can find examples where it does, but it is very clear now how the metric is designed to work.

At this point, I understand very well your scoring metric and what you intend to do with it.

And now for a bit of new analysis...Nick has often stated that one shouldn't focus on just the last place car for the most points. That it is equally important to focus on all the cars. And I will concur with this in that the frist first and last place car are equally important.

First, as I state above, the next closest to perfect is to miss 2 cars 1 spot each and it doesn't matter which 2 cars are chosen. Missing 1 & 2 scores the same as missing 3&4 scores the same as missing 5 & 6. So at this level, there is no difference between missing up front or at the back of the pack.

But I can imagine some might not be convinced. So I looked at all the possible scores and compared the average score for missing the 6th place car and the average score for getting the 6th place car. If the 6th place car were most important, it should have higher average scores for being correct:

Average score w/ 6 correct: 81
Average score w/o 6 correct: 72

Now, before one points out that getting the last place car correct is worth 9 average points, let me give you the same results for the first place car:

Average score w/ 1 correct: 81
Average score w/o 1 correct: 72

That's right, the same benefit. Getting the first place car correct is worth 9 average points.

And for completeness, here are the other results:

Average score w/ 5 correct: 76.2
Average score w/o 5 correct: 73

Average score w/ 4 correct: 73.8
Average score w/o 4 correct: 73.4

Average score w/ 3 correct: 73.8
Average score w/o 3 correct: 73.4

Average score w/ 2 correct: 76.2
Average score w/o 2 correct: 73

So in generally, both ends are equally important but a bit more important than the middle cars. This is just a reflection of the average number of places a car can be wrong. The extreme cars can be wrong by up to 5 places and hence rack up the progressively greater penalty points. The middle cars move only 3 places and rack up fewer points.

But I started out with, missing 2 cars 1 space each doesn't car which 2 cars are chosen. The same arguement applies to all the misses as shown by the penalty point tables above. Missing by X positions results in Y penalty points - it just doesn't matter which positions were missed to get to X. The importance of getting the first/last place cars correct is only to avoid the very high penalty points for missing by 4 or 5 positions.

So in the end, I understand what Nick is trying to do with his scoring metric and the indicated scoring method works for what he set out to do.

Thread: Re:User Review

Nick Danger — 2004-12-02T20:08:35+00:00

Hi Koen and thanks for the review!

This will give me a chance to publicly answer a lot of the questions and comments people who have played the game send me.

First a quick note about the components. I did add the missing cards and the reason they are separate files is that if you use Avery labels this allows you to insert each graphic into a slot. As for a car graphic, I never expected someone to “make” cars. I just figured that if they didn’t have some car bits they’d just use some blocks, pawns, or whatever. Thanks for the suggestion though, if I come across some nice car graphics I might toss them in the package.

Now, onto the game itself….

* The “finish” line.
This one gets everybody. It’s there as a method to prevent one car from just flying into the lead and never getting a chance to be caught. You have to be careful about pushing a car too much or someone might just push it over the edge and back into last. It’s a mechanic that doesn’t actually come into play all that often but the threat of it plays with your mind. Plus if passing the line put you in automatic first it would make that one shortcut way too powerful. The length of the track was one of the things that was changed the most. I wanted to get it where it was possible to make a lap, but not likely. It started out as a much longer track and I kept cutting sections out till it played like I wanted it to.
Hey, if you want to try playing where you get first for crossing – go for it! I just don’t care for the way it plays that way.

* Scoring
Ha! The biggy. This screws with _everyone’s_ mind. I admit it’s evil. I also think it’s borderline genius though (pat-pat). People always think it weighted towards getting more points for predicting the lower spots, but it’s equal across the board. Missing 1st place by one spot is the same as missing 6th by one. Missing 4 cars by one spot is better than missing 2 cars by 2 spots. It's all about getting the entire lineup to finish as close to your prediction as possible.

Richard Pardoe once took me to task over it but once I was able to explain the method behind the madness he concurred (using a lot more math terms than I even know) that it does work.

* The Game Play
There's no way to wrap your head around this game with one play. The movement and card play is just way too wacky to grasp at first. The game seems like a chaotic mess at first glance. But once it all clicks you'd be amazed at how much you can affect play with your cards and how to best predict the finish. There is also a big component of knowing the competition in this game. When you get a feel for how others are playing their cards you can even hone your predictions better yet. My winning percentage over the lunch time guys I game with is well into the 90's.

One hint I'll give you is that I often take my best color and put that car in last place. Since I have the most possible control over that car it's often easier to steer a car into last than first. I'll also, depending on who I'm playing against, take one of my weaker colors and put it first figuring if I don't have that color, others may have a nice collection and be putting it high on their list (ride the coat tails so to speak). It can be a gamble but that's a lot of the fun.

Plus, like any card game, if you can remember what's already been played you'll have an advantage and know when you can "get away" with certain other card play. In the end, I think there's as much control as in most other card games. Perhaps even more as I've taken a hand with nothing but low cards before and won with it.

I love it as a three player game and think it's fun with four. Each time you add a player you get a little less control. Five can be fun, but you just can't take it seriously. It's more a fluffy filler at that point.

All the above being said, I know well and good it's not a game everyone would like. Shoot, maybe not even most. But if you can grasp the mechanics and scoring, it's a fun little card game. One of the features I never even thought about was mentioned by a playtester. He said he liked that you were never out of the game. Since you really have no idea how well anyone is doing, you can always feel like you have a chance. Often you'll think you're doing lousy and it turns out everyone else was doing even lousier and you win.

Again, thanks for taking the time to make and play the game and giving me the opportunity to address some of the issues you and others have brought up about the game.

- Nick

Thread: User Review

gnomehome — 2004-12-02T13:54:15+00:00

Car Tricks - review

Car Tricks is DIY game - you get some files and have to construct/borrow all components yourself. More information and all the necessary files for playing Car Tricks are available at: http://www.nickdanger.com/ddesigns/cartricks/cartricks.htm

This review is based on one single game (BOO - HISS) , but I still believe it can be useful for other interested gamers.

THE AVAILABLE FILES AND CONSTRUCTION

When you download the files, you'll get some pdf-files (board sections and rules) and some zip-files containing Tif-graphics (the cards). When I downloaded the files, some yellow cards were missing, but this was easily fixed. I notified the designer and he would modify the files.

The graphics used on the cards the look very professional and are the right resolution to get crisp print-outs. The author suggests printing the cards on labels, but I printed on high-res printing paper and glued them to cut up index cards. SOme old card sleeves finished the cards.

The only gripe I had was that each card is an inidvidual file - I would have preferred multiple cards on one page. This was easily remedied though - I put nine cards on one sheet and changed the colors with a paint program to speed up the proces. All in all the printouts were finished rather fast (max. 30 minutes for all necessary parts -cards, board, scoring pad and rules). The cutting up and gluing took some more time, but that is due to my chosen method. Labels would have been much faster.

The board was a pdf file (4 pages to get a complete board), I constructed a fold-up board, which (unfortunately) came out a bit crooked and took some time -in the end I was rather content with my first attempt. The graphics look very good and fitting the pieces together is a breeze.

For cars you could use the miniature cars from Fomula Dé - a game I do not own - so there was a problem there. There are no car graphics included in the files, so I used a clipart, printed it out in different colors and glued it to a piece of foamboard. A small addition to the available files could solve this.

Conclusion : two minor remarks with the files - multiple cards on one page would be better and as would the conclusion of graphics to make pawns. The rest of the package is impeccable - the construction can be as fast or as slow as you choose yourself.

THE RULES

The rules are very clear and easy to understand, a lot of examples answer all possible questions. All possible 'difficult' situations that can arise seem to be covered. I will not repeat the game rules here - they can be downloaded for free after all !

Two small things which I found counter-intuitive

1. if a car passes the finish line, it is not put into 1st finishing position, but instead is in last place again ! I think that it is linked to the way of scoring points (if you have a lot of control over a car you can 'force' it in last place, thus possibly scoring more points), but I would have rather seen it the other way.

2. the way of scoring: you predict each cars final place and multiply your prediction with the real finishing position and total it all up. Highest score wins. The author claims that 'the math works' - I believe him, but don't understand it. This is an integral (if not essential) part of the game and DOES NOT NEED tampering with, it just makes it harder to 'get' the game.

Conclusion : no real remarks or unclarities in the rules.

THE GAME-PLAY

This is the most important part, a great looking game with great bits and clear rules, still can make a lousy game.

We played with three players, myself (my ratings will give you an idea of the style of games I like), my significant other (who likes Anno 1503, Santiago, Ausgebremmst, E&T, Citadels but dislikes Elfenland.) and a third member of the club (lets call him Krusty) who likes RPG's and lighter games.

We all made our predictions based on the cards dealt. I had two very strong colors, one rather strong, one very weak and the rest was mediocre. I thought that having good cards in a color meant that I would be able to force those cars to the top finishing positions.

Little did I realise that in order to get control of a car, you had to sacrifice 'good' cards...I underestimated the impact of that mechanism.

The game itself went very swift (but none of the players had any idea how to go about to have a real influence on the final standings). A lot of shortcuts were taken, other cars were spinning round in circles, the occasional wreck hindered the 'great leap forward',...the game was over before we knew it and not a single car crossed the finish line.

In the end the math DID work it seemed , we counted the total number of places the predictions of each player were wrong, and this ranking corresponded to the finishing order. My S.O. totalled a deviation of 8 places (and had the highest score), Krusty 10 (second place) and I was 12 places of (last place).

All three players enjoyed themselves and thought that the game had potential (it 'HAD' something, especially for a 'free' game). No-one really had an idea what the best strategy would be, but everybody knew what they would do differently to do even better next game. It seemed chaotic but we think it is due to not understanding the full potential.

Conclusion : this game will definitaly be played again, it is begging for more plays in order to fully grasp the flow and strategic possibilities of the game. The game goes swiftly, there is no analysis paralysis and it is FUN. The only downside I see is to possible advantage for those that are good at keeping track of cards played.

Image

Nick Danger — 2004-04-09T21:42:39+00:00

Image

Nick Danger — 2004-04-09T21:42:39+00:00

Image

Shakar — 2004-04-08T18:18:21+00:00