Unit 3 - Hobo Hope Playtest Analysis

Group 8

Hobo's Hope

Summary: Play as a group of homeless people to survive winter while living in a broken down shelter. You have to band together to collect enough resources to upgrade your shelter. The target audience is those who like co-op games over competitive ones. 

Problem #1

Playtesters forget to roll the 12-sided dice when they move to locations. The rules require players to roll a 12-sided dice before they move to the location they want to go to. 

Solution: Players need a reminder to roll the D12, something other than the rule sheet. 

Development: Our group thought up of Character Cards that have actions on the sheet. This way the players will have a direct instruction that would remind them to roll the die. 

Problem#2

Playtesters use the incorrect amount of resources to make another resource. An example is that they used 1 mystery herb to make medicine instead of 2 as required on the rule sheet and the resource card. 

Solution: Stronger examples would be needed. Also, more clarity would be important. 

Development: We'll add a stronger emphasis on the resource cards and the rule sheet. 

Set up

Problem#3

Morale didn't have much impact. It was a forgettable feature. The playtesters wished it played more of a factor in gameplay. 

Solution: Try to make the morale bar more of a feature. 

Development: We'll make the environmental conflicts are stronger and more effective. Or even add other features that increase or decrease the morale bar.  

Problem#4 

Debt having not big enough of an effect. It would make more sense if a debt factor would disadvantage the player if they go negative on the money.

Solution:  Players going negative in money will go into debt. This will let debt have a stronger effect. The negative money will be canceled once the player earns more money than the negative amount they have. 

Development: Instead of losing a turn, players will simply go into debt, forcing other players to help or that player to work out of debt. Debt goes away by earning money.

Unit 2 - Playtest 2 for Food Credit

Group 3

Members: William Coleman and Shouyi (Zoe) Yan

Food Credit

Synopsis: Food Credit is a game targeting college students who are competitive, achievers of victory, love to direct gameplay, or want a more challenging version of Candyland. The fate of two players is determined by dice rolls, the usage of cards, and the luck of landing on bus spaces. The first player to reach the goal wins.

Report of Playtest: 

Conflict: 

• Usage of cards not properly explained

The first playtest went smoothly. The playtesters had played our game in the previous session. Although they commented on how much the rule sheet had improved, they did not use the cards in the proper order they were meant to be used. One instance was when one player used a "Lose-Turn" card, the other player used the same type of card to cancel the effect, but it was not done properly. Players cannot immediately play a card after they lost a turn unless it is a face-down card. However, in the past playtests, it was rare to see playtester place cards face down. Either the playtesters did not understand how they work or didn't see the benefits of it clearly. Another instance was when the players used 2 cards at the same time despite the rule sheet stating that cards can only be used once before the dice roll and once after the dice roll. It's apparent that our rule sheet still needs strongly clarify when cards are used.

• Feedback: The feedback we received about this was to clarify the rules regarding the cards in the rule sheet. We might need a better explanation of face-down cards, how they work, and when players can use them. But the playtesters did note that the rule sheet was an improvement from the last playtest regarding what the cards are and what they do. We just need clarification on when the cards can be used and what face-down cards can do.
• Solution: We will definitely clarify further on how the cards work. My group member has been thinking of removing the face-down cards method seeing how it can be confusing and further explanation to it will only increase the length of the rule sheet. It still might not even be used if we did further develop it. 

• More clarification in rule sheet

Stated many times before, our rule sheet still needs polishing. Although it has improved from the first version, there's always room for improvement. Last time, we had to move the procedures above the rules so the players could start playing and learn the rules along the way as the game progressed. Even though our rule sheet was bullet-pointed, it was still mainly text. Our first playtest session had feedback that suggested we add more pictures. So for this time, our rules sheet had pictures explaining the setup and the cards. We tried to limit the number of bullet points so players wouldn't be stuck reading a wall of bullet point after bullet point. Though some parts still had confused the players.

1. Feedback: Improvements that were suggested were grouping topics together, clarifying some rules, and adding rules that explain aspects of gameplay that weren't in the rule sheet.   
2. Solution: Moving rules and procedures around so they flow better is a definite point we needed to touch. I'm glad we got feedback on that because we did not think about that at all. As for adding rules and clarifying, we will try to clarify certain rules further but we might also need to remove features so the rule sheet isn't too long. At the moment it still takes quite a while for the players to read through the rule sheet. An average of 5-8 minutes of each playtest was dedicated to the players reading the rule sheet which I believe would bore players. 

• Board is lacking interactiveness

Lastly, our board needs more features. One of the feedback suggestion was to make our board more interactive. And I would agree. I feel that it would be best to remove some card features and focus on improving our board by adding spaces that have an effect. Currently, we only have one type of effect space and it is the bus spaces which can take players 8 spaces forward at the cost of 1 bus pass. More spaces similar to that would get our players more excited to move around the board and it would definitely increase the fun levels of the game. After all, the board is the main space where all the action occurs.

1. Feedback: During our second playtest, one of the testers suggested adding some of the card's features onto the board such as the move forward [number] of spaces or spaces that makes a player lost a turn and etc. 
2. Solution: I'd love to add more features to the board and definitely will. Of course, our main focus at the moment is deciding whether the cards are effective or overwhelming. Perhaps we could move the card features onto the board, as the playtester suggested, to even things out. 

Unit 2 - Play test of Food Credit v.1

Group 3

Members: William Coleman and Shouyi (Zoe) Yan

Food Credit

Synopsis: Two players are pitted against each other to see who can reach the goal first. Each player has a set of tools at their disposal to give themselves an advantage each their opponent. This game targets college students to use their wits and skills, who would be the first to reach the goal?  

Report of Playtest: 

Conflict: 

• Long rule sheets

The thing that shocked every playtester was our three-page rule sheet. Despite the rules and procedures rather being coherent and unique, the fact it spanned across three-pages seem to frustrate the playtesters. Of course, we knew that it might have been boring to rule blocks of text, so our group tried to make the rule sheet appealing as possible using bullet points and pictures. However, there were too many rules that a lot of the time during the playtesting the players forgot to do certain actions and what certain combinations of cards can benefit them. For example, the player draws a card after each of their turns. A lot of times the opponent had to remind the player to draw a card or they both forgotten to. Another example is the fact that using three spoil cards, regardless or not if they were used in a row, causes the opponent's piece to go back to start which would have benefited the player and prolong the game. But since the players during the first playtest forgotten about this rule, the game lasted roughly 10 minutes. Both playtests had players referring back to the rule sheet most of the time, cutting actual play time which would usually hinder gameplay and leads to player frustration. 

1. Feedback: Our playtesters suggested we cut down on certain rules the best we can. If possible eliminate rules or procedures that do not affect the game heavily.
2. Solution: I do believe the best course of action is the see what we can do to fit the procedures and rules on one or two sheets externally (font/spacing/perhaps sort them on a table). If we cannot shorten the rules down to one and a half, we'll take out some rules. 

Conflict: 

• Confusion about card types

Playtesters also were confused by our cards. They were not sure how to use them and constantly referred back to the rule sheet. Especially for the spoiled cards (SP) which had an important special effect if a player uses three spoiled cards. However, due to our many rules and options of the game, players did not remember this effect. The wording (F/V/D/G) of the cards was somewhat confusing as well despite most of them not meaning much. F/V/D/G categorize the foods in a sort of accessory fashion, the thing players should have paid the most attention to is the positive or negative numbers each card held which determined the number of spaces the card's effect held over. 

1. Feedback: Playtesters suggest we clarify on the cards and bold the text in our rule sheet that held importance, especially for the spoil cards which had a big impact in gameplay.
2. Solution: The bold text suggestion is one of importance and we will definitely do that to improve our rule sheet. I do feel like we can explain how the cards work better perhaps through more pictures or even a model/illustration in our rule sheet.  

Conflict:

• Shuffling is difficult

Our cards were hard to shuffle so during the playtesting, the players drew a lot of bad sets. For example, during our first playtest one player drew four spoiled cards despite spoiled cards having a smaller ratio compared to the rest of the cards (20 healthy cards, 20 unhealthy cards, and 10 spoiled cards). Then in our second playtesting, one player kept drawing V cards or vegetable cards that had only a small negative effect on the opponent. 

1. Feedback: Not much feedback was given about this since creating official cards (cards similar to playing card decks) would cost too much money and time. One playtester suggests we take out some spoiled cards to enforce scarcity and replace them with more choice cards (cards that let the player choose which number of spaces to move). 
2. Solution: I feel like that we can't do much about the cards being bad to shuffle. However, we can replace some of the spoiled cards to make it more rare and effective. 

Unit 1 - Solitaire Mirrored

Section 06 Unit 1 Group 14
Diamond Gem:
Shouyi (Zoe) Yan
Waleed Hettini

Solitaire Mirrored is a mod for Solitaire where the player stacks the cards from Ace to King on the Tableau and colors do not matter. The game ends once you stack the cards starting from King to Ace by their suites. Achievers would enjoy this game by its challenge and how a simple change of the rules can make Solitaire a bit more difficult.

Starting positions of the cards

Problems during Playtest: 

All of our playtesters are used to regular solitaire rules where cards are stacked from King to Ace. In our mod, stacks are stacked in reverse or from Ace to King. It took some time for the playtesters to get used to that. This problem renders the time limit challenge rather useless as it took the players around 5-6 minutes into the game to get used to the reversed rules. 5-6 minutes is already about half the time of the limit of 10. 

Tableau: Colors do not matter and cards are stacked backward

Another problem was that, aside from our first playtester, the playtesters focused too much on stacking the Tableau instead of building the Foundation. Focusing on the Tableau is also a large time-consuming factor which is another reason that makes the time limit useless.

Foundation: Stack from King to Ace by suites

Out of the three playtest rounds, our first playtester faced a roadblock. She ran out of usable cards that can be used in the Stockpile. Our second playtesters did not know how to play regular Solitaire. He took quite some time but luckily finished the game. Our last playtester was confused by our rule sheet and did not get to finish the game. Overall, the problems most prevalent was the time it takes to get used to the game, knowing the use of the foundation, and the confusing rule sheet.

Feedback:
The feedback we got was mainly about our rule sheet. While it was short and easy to read, the rules ended up confusing the testers and the rules did not properly explain how to play the game especially for the tester who did not have experience with playing Solitaire. One suggestion we got was to clarify our rules revolving around the Foundation pile and how it should be stacked. Another suggestion we got was to expand on our rules for those who have never played Solitaire. One of the testers liked the time limit idea though would prefer it to be longer as it takes time to get used to the reverse stack rules.

How the game is like

What to Change: 

We will definitely change what's needed based on the feedback we got. So the most important thing to change would be the rule sheet. We would need to clarify the rules and add more detailed explanations on how to play the game. Another change would be removing the time limit. I feel that the time limit is too much of a challenge for the player. It takes too much time to get used to the rules and it pressures the player which would cause frustration. It might be helpful to add a layout as well. The layout would help remind the player that stacking the foundation is the end goal and brings more focus to it than just mainly paying attention to the Tableau. We might look into adding more changes to the game because one playtester said it sticks to close to the original. Of course, the most important change we look to make is to clarify the rule sheet. 

Conclusion: 

Overall, through playtesting we got very helpful feedback. I do see the problem with our rule sheet and we do intend on making it better. The feedback we got was eye-opening to a lot of problems and thing we could work on and improve.