Checkpoint 3
This phase of development, we focused on prototyping our game design to allow for early playtesting.
Core Gameplay
Loop
To visualize our core gameplay loop, we used Miro to quickly spin up a display an overview of our game interactions and goals.
Prototype 1
Goal Statement
Test Play Phase, see how damage interactions work within the context of the game.
Playtesting report
During the playtest, participants found the game's rules challenging to grasp, particularly regarding the use and order of armor cards and the deck shuffling process. There was a consensus that the health points were too low and the permanent scale damage was unbalanced, suggesting an increase in health from 10 to 15-20 HP and a reset of scale damage after shuffling. Confusion over discarding and the roles of shields highlighted the need for clearer rules and in-game examples. Players proposed more energy allowances for actions and a variety of gameplay enhancements. The feedback indicated that with a revision of the rulebook for better clarity, an adjustment to the health and damage system, and the introduction of strategic elements like reactionary shields, the game could offer a more engaging and balanced experience.
Improvements
-
Scale damage/armor triggers before cards that use those variables, regardless of the order in which they are played. (Revisit once cards that draw more cards are added.)
-
Have different card types: “Immediate” and “Ongoing”. Both of these go into a separate discard pile (with Ongoing being face up). Both of these discard piles are shuffled back into the deck when the deck runs out of cards, which also solves the problem of not having to remember scaling cards after being reshuffled.
Prototype 2
Goal Statement
For this prototype, our goal is to test out the Auction System with the subgoal of balancing currency within the game. The gold/currency acts the resources and the we will be evaluating the conflict or spending gold on auctioned items (cards)
Playtesting report
In the playtest, players found the auction phase clear but were confused by the play phase rules. There was no clear feedback on gold distribution or auction card balance. Clarification of play phase instructions and assessment of the gold mechanism and auction card power levels are recommended for future refinement.
Improvements
-
Create clarified version of the rules
-
The damage triggering at the end of a player’s turn was the hardest thing to understand.
-
-
Create names for cards
-
Create art for cards
-
Create new ideas for cards
Prototype 3
Goal Statement
Play the full game as opposed to only a small section. See how each of the rounds work in practice and see if the power level of the game scales correctly.
Playtesting report
The playtest feedback indicated that the game length was appropriate and the pace enjoyable, particularly after the initial round. While the rules were clear, the game mechanics need to be more intuitive. Players suggested enhancing the auction system and introducing more diverse and innovative card mechanics to improve balance and prevent predictability in victory. The uniformity of starting decks was viewed positively, but some players recommended options to modify decks mid-game for a richer play experience.
Improvements
-
ADD “ONGOING” KEYWORD.
-
Cards like scale damage/armor and poison need to be clearly an ongoing effect for the players to understand how they work.
-
Prototype 4
Goal Statement
Play through one game of stack the deck.
Test out the card removal mechanic on the auction phase. (Pay x gold, where x = the number of times you’ve done this action before. Remove a card of your choice from your deck. Max once per auction phase.)
Playtesting report
The playtest feedback found that the rules were still a bit unclear. Players indicated that there were a lot of variables during the rules and found it difficult to keep track. This lead to suggestions like including diagram/visuals in the rules, as visuals are much easier to draw information from compared to text. In this diagram or visual, we could display the setup or playing down the three cards, the discarding system the different between ongoing vs direct, and more. Either in the diagrams or the rules, we found that we needed to make which cards you discard clear and also clarify in the rules that games are ongoing (damage is reactionary). The reactionary damage was challenging to track within the game so players suggested adding a more convenient way to keep track on incoming damage.
Additionally, they found that the game may benefit from design additions to the card like color coding the standard decks on the inside of the cards or including tooltips/definitions for each of the cards.
​​​
Improvements
-
Create visuals in the rule book featuring examples
-
Design cards to include different elements
-
Tooltips/definitions
-
Color coded
-
-
Develop a system that separates different, standard player decks through color, design, shapes, etc. on the front of the card to not reveal which cards the player has on the back. (Red Square, Yellow Star, Green Triangle, Blue Circle; bottom center of card)