General Discussion on Solo Play

[Cpt Ric]

Not sure whether it makes sense to split off a new topic, yet.

There are groups of cards that are structurally bad for many solo scenarios. But, one way to think about new cards is how existing effects could be changed to be more solo friendly. Psychic Theft would be more useful in solo play if it was more like Psychic Echo "Target a crew in play. During the resource phase, any skill tokens target provides are additionally added to your resource pool."

Replenishment should be relatively better in various solo play as replenishment is kind of slow when trying to outrace another player. There's a concern that too much replenishment can be undesirable in a couple of ways, but it wouldn't be difficult to create a replenishment card that was easily removable by an opponent "Any player may pay 2 to jettison this card." or the like.

What I prefer in customizable card games is when new cards make old cards that aren't generally good better. For solo play, besides scenarios that had nuking crew you don't control, having cards that convert inflicting wounds or armor into some other resource might be interesting. Would also smooth out the value of something like armor when you get into a game where nobody is trying to murder all of your dudes.

Roger that! Yes there are a several cards that would be an "easy convert" to solo like the mentioned Psychic Theft. (Funny that was an exact card I had in mind for conversion too.) I would very much like to see these and have them made in such a way that they are Solo Only cards. Personally I'd like to see a full deck of solo cards, have a set of Adventure Cards (like the solo campaign being discussed and play tested, and/or maybe some other solo Adventure cards) and a set of Captain Cards with likely a mix of new cards and some solo version of existing cards.

I think the best part is that really no new solo rules need to be crated. Yes some slight variations to the rules to play the campaign for example, but the core game plays out very well for solo and no major "Solo AI/Bot" has to be created.

[korric]

Sounds to me like you're overcomplicating things. Those cards can just as easily just be replaced in the deck. Personally, I leave them in and just use them for expenses (not the most efficient when using 1 e.v. cards, but again, I could just replace them if I want.) Either works fine without making things unnecessarily complicated. This game has a learning curve as it is with the unintuitive iconography - yes, I know it's not difficult once you get the ball rolling, but the learning curve is there and that turns people away from the game. Changing the function of existing cards will make it worse.

[Cpt Ric]

Sounds to me like you're overcomplicating things. Those cards can just as easily just be replaced in the deck. Personally, I leave them in and just use them for expenses (not the most efficient when using 1 e.v. cards, but again, I could just replace them if I want.) Either works fine without making things unnecessarily complicated. This game has a learning curve as it is with the unintuitive iconography - yes, I know it's not difficult once you get the ball rolling, but the learning curve is there and that turns people away from the game. Changing the function of existing cards will make it worse.

I think that is the point we are discussing. That is, replace a few cards with ones that are solo oriented. I don't think it will be a huge number of cards and having them as a separate pack, you can decide if you'd like to use them or not. I think a deck of 20 cards, 3 copies each so 60 total just like "Trouble on the Mains", would be plenty. Call it "Alone on the Mains" or some such. I expect many will be just "solo friendly" version of cards that already exist, and maybe a few truly new cards.

I think they should be marked in a way that makes it clear these cards are for solo play. Yet another icon?! Maybe a single person version of the icon put next to the value? Maybe it wouldn't matter, but I was thinking they might not really be "right" for multiplayer games.

I'd just like to see a bit more attention given to the solo play of the game. Its a bummer to look at a card and say "well other then a value this card is rather useless in a solo game". I'd rather have "all" cards be of potential use in my deck, now if I get to use them or not is another question. Sure several are just going to be used for the , but even those I would hope could have be used for something else.

And I think having a "Solo Expansion Deck" would help sales too. Some folks look at the box and see it's 2-4 players then pass on getting it and never know that it works great as a solo game.

[korric]

I think that is the point we are discussing. That is, replace a few cards with ones that are solo oriented. I don't think it will be a huge number of cards and having them as a separate pack, you can decide if you'd like to use them or not. I think a deck of 20 cards, 3 copies each so 60 total just like "Trouble on the Mains", would be plenty. Call it "Alone on the Mains" or some such. I expect many will be just "solo friendly" version of cards that already exist, and maybe a few truly new cards.

I think they should be marked in a way that makes it clear these cards are for solo play. Yet another icon?! Maybe a single person version of the icon put next to the value? Maybe it wouldn't matter, but I was thinking they might not really be "right" for multiplayer games.

I'd just like to see a bit more attention given to the solo play of the game. Its a bummer to look at a card and say "well other then a value this card is rather useless in a solo game". I'd rather have "all" cards be of potential use in my deck, now if I get to use them or not is another question. Sure several are just going to be used for the , but even those I would hope could have be used for something else.

And I think having a "Solo Expansion Deck" would help sales too. Some folks look at the box and see it's 2-4 players then pass on getting it and never know that it works great as a solo game.

I may be misinterpreting then, but it sounded to me like the post was implying reinterpreting existing cards. Kind of like: I can put Psychic Theft in my deck and, if I draw it in solo play, then interpret it as "xxxxx" instead of what the card states. If we're talking about just making a different card that is similar to Psychic Theft but with a different name and more solo-suitable function, then yes, I see no problem with that at all. If that's the case, then I agree with everything you've stated. I also agree that a solo expansion would increase the visibility of the game's solo suitability. Marketing it as a 2-4 player game no doubt turned away some players that prefer games that can also be played solo. As an aside, I think that calling it a "ccg" had a similar effect as most would read that as "collectible card game." Many players move on as soon as they see ccg.