Category:Third prototype test 15/10-11



Test 7-8

Before this test session, we have not had a fully functional game plan. But for this game, we created a game plan with 169 squares in the same hexagon shape as the tiles, with space for up to six players. At each corner the players have a base. Around this base is a "safezon" where other players may not add or change tiles. There are also multipliers in the middle of the map. A ring that consist of 2x marks and the very middle piece is a 3x mark. If a player puts a resource on this place, and then claim that resource, that player gets the tripple amount of points for that resource each round. The ring with the 2x marks works just like the 3x mark exept that it doubles the points instead of tripples it.

The new playing field felt balanced. All players went in to get to the center as soon as possible to claim 2x- and 3x- tiles. The shape of the map and the multiplier marks gave the players alot of options in their strategy. Some players tried to put and claim resource close to their base and others tried to go for the multiplyers. The board was also balanced in its size. Players could in a number of rounds get to the other side of the plan to also claim mines in this area. There didnt seem to be one winning strategy as the board keeps changing during the game.

When we tested the game a second time, we noticed a detail in the game that we could not adopt any rule about. Two players were at the first round teleported (with an action card) to the opposite base. This meant that they had incredibly long way to build a road that led to their own base. Even if they claimed a resource they didnt have a clear path from their own base. So claiming resourced wouldnt grant them any points. This ment athat they didnt get any points and they couldnt buy action cards to change the situation. It ended up they hadn´t collect a single point when the game ended. We thought about some solutions to the problem. One idea was that a player could be able to gain an action card by skipping a turn instead of buying the card. Another suggestion was that players could not teleport a player into a box that could not lead the player to their home base again. We couldnt decide on eather one but the later one seemed to make more sence.

We also tested two new cards during game two. One was "nullify" which meant that the player could neutrilize any card another player played out. What we thought worked really well. The second card "jump" was not tested because none of the players got this card.

Over all we worked out a few flaws in the systems and we got good results from each test. The systems are coming together and there is room for changes but tweeking the current systems will be a priorety.