Group 14 Conquest of The Undergrowth Playtest and Development
Group 14
Team Kint
Conquest of The Undergrowth
Conquest of The Undergrowth is a fast paced strategy game for two players. Players take the role of rival ant colonies fighting for dominance of a small patch of woodland undergrowth. This game should appeal to strategy game and competitive minded players especially those who have an affinity for ants.
Due to an issue with people dropping from the course after the second unit of the course my partner for the third unit only replied to my emails once and I have never had contact with them since. Due to this I did not have any help with anything in this third unit. I had to do all of the in-play test and out of class work. I did have full creative freedom but I would have gladly given some of that freedom for someone to advise me out of the main play tests. The first play test saw a rule sheet that was incomplete with many available loopholes which were quickly pointed out. In the second play test the rules were confusing to the players in particular due to poor ordering. Having someone to work with me would have avoided both of these issues.
Particular issues with the first play test was the ability to attack with all of one's units before refreshing them all to easily take tons of territory quickly. The turn limit in the second rule sheet fixed this issue. Other issues with the first rule sheet iteration was that it did not properly specify where units could attack to and from. Players were still slow moving and cautious even with the fast pace intentions.
In the second rule sheet the big problem was that the objective of the game was not properly spelled out in the beginning and only vaguely explained at the end. Another annoying issue was that I did not properly clarify that players could only make one attack per turn and that that unit position was superseded by control markers. The last though not least issue with the second rule sheet was the poor order of the rules in the rule sheet. The first part of this problem was the setup rules were at the beginning without anything having been explained. Then the maps were after the setup and were confusing without rules context. Then came procedures after that followed by the rest of the rules. I have reordered the rules with the setup now being near the end and the beginning having the goal of the game and the procedures with the maps scattered throughout based on where they are needed.
The main problem with the game development of the unit three game was the lack of a second person to give me help on the project. It was somewhat nice to not have to make concessions to another developer but I really missed having a partner to give me advice. I also did not always pay adequate attention to keeping my rules easy to understand or watertight.
In future I look to improve my development process in several ways. The first way I look to improve in is getting much more outside play testing help if at all possible. I would also look to have at least one semi-helpful partner at the bare minimum as even one as fairly self reflective as I cannot reliably spot all the problems within my own projects. Now obviously that is what play-testing is for but having even a second pair of eyes to look over my work would help immensely. Two heads are better than one after all.
Team Kint
Conquest of The Undergrowth
Conquest of The Undergrowth is a fast paced strategy game for two players. Players take the role of rival ant colonies fighting for dominance of a small patch of woodland undergrowth. This game should appeal to strategy game and competitive minded players especially those who have an affinity for ants.
Due to an issue with people dropping from the course after the second unit of the course my partner for the third unit only replied to my emails once and I have never had contact with them since. Due to this I did not have any help with anything in this third unit. I had to do all of the in-play test and out of class work. I did have full creative freedom but I would have gladly given some of that freedom for someone to advise me out of the main play tests. The first play test saw a rule sheet that was incomplete with many available loopholes which were quickly pointed out. In the second play test the rules were confusing to the players in particular due to poor ordering. Having someone to work with me would have avoided both of these issues.
Particular issues with the first play test was the ability to attack with all of one's units before refreshing them all to easily take tons of territory quickly. The turn limit in the second rule sheet fixed this issue. Other issues with the first rule sheet iteration was that it did not properly specify where units could attack to and from. Players were still slow moving and cautious even with the fast pace intentions.
In the second rule sheet the big problem was that the objective of the game was not properly spelled out in the beginning and only vaguely explained at the end. Another annoying issue was that I did not properly clarify that players could only make one attack per turn and that that unit position was superseded by control markers. The last though not least issue with the second rule sheet was the poor order of the rules in the rule sheet. The first part of this problem was the setup rules were at the beginning without anything having been explained. Then the maps were after the setup and were confusing without rules context. Then came procedures after that followed by the rest of the rules. I have reordered the rules with the setup now being near the end and the beginning having the goal of the game and the procedures with the maps scattered throughout based on where they are needed.
The main problem with the game development of the unit three game was the lack of a second person to give me help on the project. It was somewhat nice to not have to make concessions to another developer but I really missed having a partner to give me advice. I also did not always pay adequate attention to keeping my rules easy to understand or watertight.
In future I look to improve my development process in several ways. The first way I look to improve in is getting much more outside play testing help if at all possible. I would also look to have at least one semi-helpful partner at the bare minimum as even one as fairly self reflective as I cannot reliably spot all the problems within my own projects. Now obviously that is what play-testing is for but having even a second pair of eyes to look over my work would help immensely. Two heads are better than one after all.
Comments
Post a Comment