EvenOdd Shedder Dev Journey & Test 11-1-22

I'm backburning the name "Odd Ducks" at this point, the original idea that odd value cards were special for stocks doesn't make sense right now, so the working title has become EvenOdd.

Development Journey!

After writing my last post, I spent hours tweaking and thinking about this game and went on a couple of development journeys before arriving at the game I tested today.

BIDDING

The same night I wrote the last post, I later realized that I could do away with the "shed-out bonus" cards and instead replaced them with a bidding phase after cards were dealt. The deck is made up of cards from 1-7, so I gave players 14 card hands, and we simultaneously picked one card to bid into the shed-out bonus pool. Just like I mentioned before, the player who bid the lowest card led first, and the player who bid the highest card would gain 2x those points if they shed out first, but instead lost that number of points if they didn't shed out first.

BREAKING TIES

The previous point led me to a problem. With cards valued 1-7, there WILL be tie situations. I decided to add tiebreaker numbers to each card so that they are all unique. This was originally done with dots under the cards like this:

The idea was that if two cards of the same value are bid, then the dots will break the tie to know which is higher or lower. I loved how these cards looked but wasn't sold on how easy they would be to parse.

BOMB BOONDOGGLE

From this point, I fell down a deep "bomb search" rabbit hole. I mentioned in the last post that I was quite interested in finding some way to add bombs to the game to add uncertainty and agency. The idea of a bomb is a meld that can be played outside of the led meld and one that is strictly stronger. I did come up with a great idea, in theory, and it involved finding essentially "straight flushes" inside the deck. If a set of cards had consecutively ascending dots, this would be a bomb with 3 or more, and a run of cards that had identical dots would also be a bomb. I was certainly worried it may be hard to parse these ideas, but figured if the mechanics worked well, then I'd figure out how to show it correctly later. I reached out to a good friend of mine who is far better at math than me, and he graciously built some simulations to determine the odds of finding these types of bombs at various player counts and bomb minimum lengths (3+ or 4+ cards for example). This is a visualization of the bomb types:

The results of my friend's math were quite interesting, but unfortunately, they didn't provide me with any kind of consistency. I was hoping to find a situation where the odds of a bomb with a 3p deck could be similar to that in a 4p deck, and thought I could likely get there by changing the minimum bomb length. In reality, based on my friend's simulation, the closest gap I could get between the 3p and 5p decks was around 20% which is way too big. I don't think the game will feel right if you have a 30% chance to get a bomb with 3p and only a 10% chance with 5p. I was disheartened by the results but also really happy to see them before I invested more time into this idea.

Feeling dejected, I decided I needed to come back to the WHY of this bomb search. This was based on key feedback from playtesters who wanted more agency in the middle of a hand. If someone played 1 & 1, then I wanted there to be the possibility that it wasn't strictly going to win. If there is a chance of bombs, then you may sweat a turn playing 1&1 because a bomb could come in and steal a "guaranteed lead" from you. I thought about this more and realized that bombs aren't the only way to do this...

BREAKING TIES AGAIN

Going off of the previous example of a 1&1 being unbeatable, well, what if they could be beaten by a stronger 1&1 from another player? I already put unique tie-breaker dots on the cards, so why couldn't one 1 card be stronger than another? This felt like a eureka moment, as well as a really head-slapper. Within a minute of this occurring to me, I had it mapped out, I'd use the up/down strength mechanic that is already in the game, and now a 1(2 dots) 1 (5 dots) would beat a 1(3dots) 1(4 dots). Two cards mean lower is stronger, so the 2 dots are stronger than the 3 dots. Sure this means that there will still be strictly "unbeatable" cards in the deck, but these will make non-decision plays far less often than before when you couldn't beat a pair with the same pair. 

I realized that the "dots" on the cards wouldn't lend themselves very well to quickly parsing the strength of one card vs another, so I changed the cards to look like this instead. The deck was identical, it just showed differently.

Playtest! 11-1-22

With these changes in mind, I was itching to actually try them out and see if they would work. 

I was able to get an impromptu playtest tonight with 3 players, and we played through 3 hands. The overall feedback was positive, both of my opponents not only enjoyed the even/odd low/high mechanic, but they also liked the tie-breaking with the second numbers on cards. I was worried this would feel clunky, but surprisingly it felt natural and simply worked well.

The main points of the discussion centered on the bidding part of the game. On the first hand one player bid a 4 and didn't expect that it would be the highest number. This meant they were essentially surprised with a bet, and when they subsequently didn't go out first, they had a strong "feels bad" moment as they lost 4 points. To them, it felt like the game randomly decided they had bet, and they would much prefer to actually make that decision themselves.

The other tester was also not sold on the entire bidding package of the game. I couldn't pull out any specific pain points, so I think it was more of an overall feeling, but it did foster a great conversation and brainstorming session between the three of us. Here are some of the key points discussed as well as how they affect my plans for the next test:

Slow it down

The hands finished surprisingly fast. I liked the quick pace of the game, we easily finished 3 hands in 15 minutes, but it almost felt too fast too me overall. Happening into a 1-7 card straight isn't going to be all that rare with a deck like this, and being able to dump over half your hand in that case, as well as more likely but slightly smaller cases, makes it easier to shed-out. I hate to say it, but I think I'm going to test with a 4 card ceiling next time to try and slow the hand down just a bit. Also, to force players into leading singles more often since they'll hypothetically have more remainders. That last part may not be true since low runs are still possible, but I'm curious to see how the dynamics shift. A 4 card ceiling means there are still 2 odd and 2 even options which feels like it still offers enough good options. Most hands were 4 cards or less anyway. I hate putting in arbitrary feeling limits like this, so I'll likely think on this part quite a bit after more testing.

Nothing for the loser!

It felt a little odd that the last player with cards still got points. With the score setting phase, there are cards equal to the players, so you may get lots of points and never actually shed-out. This led me to explore the idea of removing one of the score cards so that there is no card for the last player, which means they score nothing for that round. They are intended to be shed-out bonuses, so why give it to a player who didn't shed out? This design space got me considering what to do with that last, lowest, score card and this led me directly into...

High revealer bonus instead of bet

The player who revealed the highest card for scoring takes the lowest score card and puts it in front of them as a potential bonus if they go out first. If they do go out first, then they gain that number of points, however, if they don't go out first, then the card is simply discarded with no further effect. This means they won't accidentally find themselves having put their points on the line, but it also means there is an incentive to bid high because it gives the player the potential to gain these bonus points. 

Bring back betting!

The previous idea feels like a relatively tame carrot for one player if they go out first, as well as a tame stick for their opponents to try and deny those bonus points. I don't mind these, but I do love a bet when it comes to shedding games and I want to bring it back. Again, a key piece of feedback was not being forced to bet by the game, so my thought is why not make it optional again. I see two ways of going about this right now, I'm not sure which I prefer:

1. Once all score cards are revealed, and the high player takes the lowest score card as a potential bonus, that high player may choose to "double or nothing" that bonus score card. They do this before the low player leads the first hand. If the bonus card is a low value then that player may feel like they may as well bet, but of course they won't get much benefit either by doubling a small number. If it happens to be a higher value bonus card, then that incentive to try and double it could be interesting. I'm not sure if "double or nothing" is the right call, or if I should make it meaner and go with "double or lose points equal to the bonus". I imagine I'll test the tamer version first.
2. Have all players be able to do a "double or nothing" bet before they play their first card. There could be betting tokens they could take to make it obvious, or they could just call it out like in Tichu. If they do this bet and go out first, then they gain double the points of that score card. If they do not go out first, then they still take the highest score card, but they flip it face down to show they gain no points for it due to busting. This may feel bad, since why work hard for inevitable 0 points, but it does deny those points from opponents, so hopefully they'd still be motivated to go out ASAP. The idea here is that multiple players could bet, which is always a fun time when it happens in other games like Tichu. This could be especially interesting to give multiple players "hail mary" options if they are far behind and want a way to potentially catch up even if they didn't reveal the highest score card for that round.

Oops, I think Odd Ducks is two games.

 Had a great single-hand playtest today, tried a "kitchen sink" game where I threw all the ideas from previous tests together. The stocks were increased, and on every even card, and every odd card changed the stock price of the player who won the trick. It worked well enough, but the stocks we had at the end of the hand felt kind of random and secondary to the decisions we were making. This was also the first test with wild cards (2 per player), and those worked well enough. In the discussion after, the main point was "there was too much going on, lots of good ideas though." I wasn't surprised by this, in a way, this test was me intentionally testing how much I could throw in, and I think it was too much.

2 Weird Things

One note Nick told me kept rattling around in my head ever since: "For a card game like this, I feel like it should only have one weird new thing, not two". I believe he was specifically referencing how this game seemed to not be sure if it is a shedder or a stock-aquisition-based game. But I kept thinking about this and realized that it is already doing 2 weird things, and I think that's been my problem. 

In my first post about Odd Ducks I mentioned that there are 2 gimmicks, and only now am I realizing that trying to marry them together into one game has actually been the real problem.  Gimmick 1 involves the odds-high / evens-low idea, and this absolutely works best in a shed-out focused design. Gimmick 2 involves cards that are stocks tied to players, and this absolutely works best when playing cards is about grabbing NOT about getting the lead and going out.  Several times I've thought about changing gimmick 1 so that you could beat a meld with a larger one (like a triple beating a pair) so that there is extra flexibility to grab stocks, but that just doesn't work at all with the core conceit of the gimmick. I think these gimmicks need to break up.

Gimmick 1 as a game - Odds & Evens Ducks

I think there is an exciting betting/shedding game here, where gimmick 1 is allowed to shine. Here are my thoughts for a test of this as it's own game:

• Deck size is 2 x (1-7) per player so that everyone always has 14 cards and the full deck is always dealt. This means there will be far more duplicates which will allow the "set melds" more space exist in this design
• Keep the initial round bidding that was tested the previous time. Have cards like -1,0,1,2,3,4,5 (super TBD) and players in score order (or maybe reverse score order) choose one card after seeing their hands. 
• The player who selects the lowest will lead first.
• The player who selected the highest bid will double their shed-out bonus if they shed-out first. If they don't, then instead they lose that number of points and give them to the player who did shed-out first.
• I feel like this might need some form of a BOMB so that you aren't guaranteed to win with a single 7 etc. 

Gimmick 2 as a game - Stocky Ducks

This game should be all about having cards you take be stocks and manipulators. I'm not even sure if this should be a climbing game, but one thing I do know is that the card-play aspect needs to be much more flexible (perhaps more like Hachi train) with its card play. I will potentially keep the stock price fluctuation cards and stock cards in the deck idea, I'll need to think about this game much more before I have a coherent idea of how the card play should actually work. 

One strong note I got in both this and the previous test, was that players are interested in changing the values of other players' stocks in addition to their own. I feel like there is something there, but it's not even a shadow of a mechanical idea just yet. 

Odd Ducks Playtest 10-23-22 notes

Playtested 3 different ideas today. The key things that came out of it are:

• "Bidding / Tichu" variant went over surprisingly well for players selecting "go out" bonuses.
• "No shedding bonus" variant with stock prices changing on odd cards was more interesting than expected. 
• Multiple testers mentioned wanting more "agency" with their card-playing options. 

It feels like there are two ways this design can go and I'm not sure which route I want to go yet (or if I want to try and plow through with a middle road that touches on both). 

1. Shedding focused with tense "tichu" bidding play.
2. Trick-taking focused, where the cards you take is the priority and going out has little to no impact.

#1 is fundamentally a more streamlined and familiar climbing/shedding experience, though still definitely enough of it's own game to stand on it's own.

#2 has the potential to get wonky and clunky with math, though I think that's largely fixable with tracks for stock prices. This feels like a more unique design direction.

I am currently tempted to go with #2, but I can't shake the great tension that came from shed-out bonus bidding that came from #1. I could slam these together and have shedding out give core score modifiers, with tense bidding, and then also have cards taken to modify the stock prices. The worry there is this may turn into TOO MUCH happening, but it also lets me have my cake and eat it too, so this is the way I want to test the next time. It may crash and clunky burn, but I just need to see. 

Next Steps

I have two different ideas I want to test next, and each involves a significant change to the deck makeup. In each of these ideas, all odd cards will modify the stock value of the player who takes them, and all even cards are stocks of that player's color:

1. Decks of 1-11 per player, each person starts with 2 wild cards (however winning player's stock value). 
2. Decks of 1-7 twice per player. 

The 2 wilds per player are there to increase agency, which was a big note I got. The reason I want to try #2 is to balance out the strengths of runs vs sets. At 4p with #1, the biggest set meld is 4 while the biggest run meld is 11. With #2, then at 4p the biggest set meld is 8 and the biggest run meld is 7 which feels closer. I don't know if I want to add wild cards into the mix with this option, as player hands will already be 14 cards each which are about the maximum I want to try. 

Odd Ducks - Where it's at & where it's going

 Odd Ducks Current Ruleset 10-6-22

Components

• 5 x 13 card decks, one per player, with the same layout (colored cards match the player's color)

• ?? x Shed out bonus cards (possible values being something like -2,-1,0,1,2,3,4, etc)

• 5 x Player bidding tokens

Setup

1. For each player in the game, shuffle their player deck together.
2. Deal the entire deck out to the players, they should have 13 card hands.
3. Place Shed-out bonus cards faceup (the number and types are still a big question, discussed later in this post)
4. Give each player a colored bidding token (to help remind everyone who controls which color).

Gameplay

Odd Ducks is a climbing-style shedding game where the strength of melds and point values for cards change from one hand to the next. The object is to play all of your cards while also gaining as many points as you can.

Playing A Hand

The hand is broken up into a number of tricks. In each trick, the starting player will play one meld to the table. Their opponents, in clockwise order, will be able to pass or play onto the current meld in order to take control of the hand. Players may only play onto the current meld if their played cards are stronger than the current meld. Once all players pass back to the last player to play cards, the trick will end and with the last player to play cards being the winner. The trick winner takes all scoring cards (non-white) that were played into the trick and puts them into a face-up scoring area. The white played cards are removed to a face-down discard pile. The previous trick winner will be the starting player for the next trick.

The hand will continue until all but one player has shed out. At this point, the last player with cards must discard their hand and then perform the Shedding Out procedure described below. The hand will now end, and players will score all the cards in their scoring area.

Legal Melds

• 1 or more cards of the same value
• 2 or more cards that are a consecutive run

Meld Strength

• Odd meld size = Higher is stronger
• Even meld size = Lower is stronger

Shedding Out

As soon as a player plays the last card from their hand, they have shed out. They take the highest value available shed-out bonus card, and place it face up in front of them. Once a player has shed-out, they must wait until the end of the hand in order to score the cards in their scoring area.

Scoring

All black cards in a player's scoring area are worth points to them equal to their shed-out bonus value. All cards that match a player color are worth points equal to that matching player's shed-out bonus value for whoever has those cards. Tally these points and then begin the next hand.

Game End

This is completely TBD at the moment.

Odd Ducks - Big Questions

All of my current uncertainty for the game relates to deck construction, scoring, and endgame. So far the actual process of playing cards into a trick seems completely solid, and I haven't made any revisions to that since its conception.

Deck Construction Questions

Currently, the deck is made up of sets of 13 cards (1-13) per player so that it fully deals out exactly 13 random cards to each player. I keep going back and forth about the number of scoring cards in the deck. In the last playtest, there were 2 player scoring cards and 1 neutral (black card that scores for your own shed-out value) card in each set, and it felt like there weren't enough neutrals. Neutral scoring cards seem key because they are the main motivator for a player to try and shed-out before their opponents. I worry having 5 scoring cards per deck could lead to a feeling of "this is too much to score" at the end of a round, but testing is necessary to see how that actually feels. 

Shed-Out Scoring Questions

This is currently the biggest set of questions that I have for the ruleset. In the last playtest the shed-out bonus values started at -1, 0, 1 (it was a 3p game) and we quickly realized these values were simply too low and that the zero value felt kind of boring due to it simply negating so many cards and not allowing for much score movement. We also tested -1, 1, 2 for one hand and this felt MUCH more interesting. 

That being said, one of the key pieces of feedback I got from those playtesters was that it'd be interesting to see those shed-out values change from one hand to the next. A bunch of ideas were thrown out, and none of them have been tested. Below are the ideas I specifically want to test:

• A static set of shed-out values, probably players + 3 options. Before any cards are played from a hand, players (likely in score order) must "bid" by putting a token of their color onto a empty shed-out bonus card. Once all bids are in, the player who bid the lowest (put onto the lowest value card) will be the starting player for the hand. All bidding tokens except for the highest bid are removed back to the players, then remove all non-bid shed-out cards. That highest bid stays on the shed-out bonus card and this becomes a goal for that player. If they shed out first and take the bonus card with their token then they get some big reward (potentially immediate points equal to the value of the bonus card) but if any other player sheds-out first then that player who bid the highest loses some number of points (maybe points equal to the value of the card) as a penalty for bidding so high but not going out first. I want this to be a way for players to show confidence in their hands, and to tempt players to bid up the values with a real downside for bidding too high. I think this could add a Tichu-call-esque vibe to the game but won't know without actually trying it.
• Each player starts the game with a full set of shed-out bonus cards (perhaps in their color?). At the start of each hand, all players simultaneously choose one of their remaining bonus cards and then reveal it. These are put into a scoring supply, in order of the bonus card values, and they become the bonuses that are given as players shed-out that hand. Played shed-out bonus cards are removed from the game after the round, so players have less options as the game goes on. This ties in with endgame questions, because using this the game could simply end after players have used all of their bonus cards. This could also be a way to have players show confidence in their hand, perhaps they throw out their biggest bonus card when they feel really good about a hand etc.
• Have a number or bonus cards equal to twice the player count. At the start of each hand, randomly deal out 2 bonus cards to each player. Everyone simultaneously selects one of these and reveals them. They will be the bonus values for the current round, and when setting up the next round, all of these are shuffled and health out again to the players. This gives players some amount of choice for what cards will be available, but not TOO much choice. I'm not crazy about this idea, but it could be interesting to try.
• Here's the last one, and it's the biggest change. Player card scoring is STATIC during the round, as in you know exactly what the blue scoring cards are worth from the beginning. This is done by having those player color values be set to the shed-out bonus that color got in the previous round or it is set by the overall player scores (highest current score has their stocks worth the most, and so on). In this way players know for sure what all non-neutral scoring cards are worth in the round. With this idea, players wouldn't score any points for their own color scoring cards. So the player who is winning (or just shed-out first last round) will get no points for their highest value bonus, which could offer some interesting rubberbanding to the scores. Also means the person who shed-out last (or is just losing the game) won't be able to take negative points for their player color scoring cards (they could still go negative due to shedding-out last and having neutral cards be worth negative points). I was super in love with this idea when it first came to me, but the more I think about it the more I worry it may simply not be interesting. I do want to test it because it's the biggest scoring change out of all these ideas.

Game End Questions

I currently don't know how the game should end. In one way, this is the most broad set of questions because I don't think I can really figure this out until the numerous scoring questions are locked in. The end game condition could well be wrapped up into them (for example having a diminishing player hand of bonus cards to play). The key thing I want to keep in the game is some form of tension that even the player who is winning (maybe even by a lot) could still technically lose the game before it is over. Because of this, I don't love the idea of playing X number of rounds by itself. I could come around to this as long as there was an alternate condition, perhaps "shooting the moon" type of thing that even a last-place player could do to immediately win. I don't have any other specific ideas here, I don't think it makes sense to focus on these questions until the scoring is more figured out.

Odd Ducks? a quick design diary catching up to the present

I've had a new idea that I am quite excited about, currently called "Odd Ducks." The game originated during a playtest of a friend's game (Shreesh) and has blossomed from there. It started out with a single gimmick and now has two gimmicks, and below is a design diary that brings me to the present. I'll write a second post detailing the rules and options for the game as I currently see it.

Gimmick #1: Odds & Evens for Ups & Downs

This is where the game first started, and it's a straight-up modification of a key part of Shreesh's design. Their game was a dominos shedder that had 1, 2, & 3 card melds (runs and sets), and when the meld was size 1 or 2, the LOWER the card was, the stronger it was. With 3 card melds, the higher the value, the stronger, and that is where their game sits. Days after playtesting, I asked them, "have you tried this with single-value cards instead of dominos? And have you considered what if odd meld sizes are high = strong whereas even meld sizes are low = strong?" Their response was something like, "I haven't tried single-value cards, and the odd/even idea sounds great to me." These ideas didn't really work for their dominos-based shedder, and at that moment, I decided to see if I could design my own game with this as the core principle. 

Through a couple playtests, the following hasn't changed one bit:

Legal Melds

• 1 or more cards of the same value
• 2 or more cards that are a consecutive run

Meld Strength

• Odd meld size = Higher is stronger
• Even meld size = Lower is stronger

The main reason I am really enjoying this gimmick is that it makes high and low values potentially strong. So far, I've found the puzzle of getting through my hands to be fascinating (if not occasionally confusing). 

Gimmick #2: Cards as Stocks

As I continued to mull through Gimmick #1, a concern popped into my head early. What if someone gets really lucky and they simply play all their cards fast? This is a shedding game where playing cards is the key, how do I deal with this? My first answer to this came through the lens of the game Tichu, and that was partnerships. If someone gets a really lucky hand, well maybe their partner didn't, and they have to figure it out as a team. I considered team-based play for a while, but the concern of player count restriction loomed large. This led me to wonder, what about organic teams? Where your partner changes each round. Or what if you can partner with someone who ISN'T partnered back with you? This is where I started to get some traction. 

Quickly the core idea of Gimmick #2 emerged, what if players had one or two cards that were their color, and these cards can be played into tricks and won by various players. Then those cards will be worth points that are variable depending on when the matching player shed out all their cards! 

The first iteration of this idea involved giving each player 2 cards in their color that where faceup on the table, one says "odd" the other says "even" and they are flexible wild cards that must match their restriction when played onto the table. I quickly realized, before playtesting, that this was simply way too powerful and players would likely almost always win a hand with them which means they'd always take their own stocks. 

Just 30 minutes before my first real playtest, I came up with a new idea. Lets make these 2 faceup cards value 7 and 8, respectively. These are the "weakest" values in a deck (at the time the deck was 1-14 x player count) since they are right in the middle and won't be hugely impactful for even or odd sized melds. The first playtest was done using this rule and overall it "worked", though it quickly became obvious that (especially at lower player counts) it was still very easy to toss the 7 and 8 together into a big run that was unlikely to be beaten. We quickly adopted a 4-card meld limit which worked well enough, but I hate arbitrary limits like this and knew I needed to come up with something different.

I spent a bunch of time considering this, briefly thinking about making the player colors the highest and lowest number possible, but the issue of easily winning your own stocks was still around.

Then I had a big new idea: Why not just shuffle the deck together so that you aren't guaranteed to have your own stocks in hand? From this I quickly iterated to adding "black" stocks into the deck that score points for the player based on the point value the player gets for shedding out. So if they are first, their black stocks may be worth 3 points each, but if they are last then their black stocks would be -1 points each, etc. I made the deck smaller, now 1-13, and made the middle card 7's into these black stocks. I the 4s and 10s became player-specific stocks and this is how the game was for the second playtest session.

By and large that session went very well, though the testers did mention an interest in being able to manipulate the shed-out values for the players as well as possibly being able to convey some information about player hand strength earlier in the round to help guide stock-aquisition decisions. 

Since the second playtest I've thought a bunch more and decided I want to try increasing the number of black stocks, from 1 to 3 per player set. I then pushed the player stock values to 3 and 11, and realized all the "power" cards are odd. Thus "Odd Ducks" the name was born, we'll see how long it sticks!

Mutation: More quick notes

 I wanted to get some ideas written down before I forget. I playtested a few times with Anastasia a month and a half ago and just realized I hadn't mentioned it.

The big notes:

1. Playing 2p was awesome, controlling 2 colors. What if you always controlled 2 colors? We tried "Between Two Petri Dishes" at 3p where we each shared 2 colors and it sort of worked. Lots of overlap but I think there is potential there.
2. Removing the assumption that dice MUST always match. We tried a couple of games where dice had to match at least one side instead of all sides and surprisingly it didn't break the game. It made it easier to have "good plays" so we were less often going fishing with bad die rolls to start new things. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it.

Tricky Stocks, a new idea after a long drought

 First post in 5 years! I recently went to a trick-taking convention, and it got my brain swimming with potential ideas for making my own trick-taking game. I prefer shedding games, but for now, this design really feels better suited for trick-taking.

Tricky Stocks

Starting this off as a "may follow" game where the player who wins the trick will take the winning card as one stock of that color. The player with the weakest played card will choose any remaining card in the played trick to put into the "operations" splay. All other players can "upgrade" one card in their hand, spinning it 180degrees and adding 10 to its value.

The strength of the suits is dictated by the operation track, start with shuffled single cards of each suit and splay them. The current idea is to only use the operations splay to break value ties, so a 7 will always beat a 6.

The current idea is that players start a round with X cards and put one face down in front of them. Then reveal this, and it's each player's initial stock for the round. Once all cards have been played, each player scores for their stocks, with each one being worth points equal to the number of that color in the operations splay.

I'm toying with the idea of having variable values for stocks and operations depending on the upgrade as well as the overall value of the card, but for now, I'm keeping them symmetric.

After scoring, shuffle everything up and do it again, most points after a X turns wins the game?

Seems pretty simple at the moment, but it's a neat place to start, and I'm hoping to test it with someone soon. Currently, it feels like a 3p minimum game due to the "first gets stocks, last runs operations, middle upgrades" structure.