Skip to Content
 

August test session

7 replies [Last post]
Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008

Hi

This weekend we had the August test session (We play a lot of games during those sessions and some of those are prototypes). This session started 09.30 and ended 22.30 (1 hour lunch break). (Then we moved Sands of time to Sunday and had a 4 hour session that day too).
None of my game was up this time since my computer breakdown (It will take me between 1-3 weeks before I get it back (I already been out of working tool for 2 weeks and I have abstinence).

There were only two prototype games that we tested, Both games are classics in this forum and have been discussed before.

High Council of Evensford. Game designer is Geminiweb.
Sands of Time. Game designer is JWarrend.

I will start with High Council... and give the comments on Sands of time later this week (probably Wednesday or Thursday). I'm still waiting for comments from one of the player on that game.

// Johan

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
August test session

High Council of Evensford is a game where the players together building up a city. We have seen the same type (style) of game before in Puerto Rico and San José. Still the game is a unique game with an own twist.
The winner is the player that first gets 16 points (or whatever limit you set). You get points for building some building and claiming areas (you have most buildings in an area). Buildings are represented on a gameboard. For some (most of the) buildings you also receive a bonus (as a special rule that apply to you).
To get a building you need build (can wait several turns before the building is ready). To build you need gold. Gold are represented by production cards. To be able to use a production card you must archived the technology level for the card. You get technology levels by collecting resource cards. In the deck of resource cards you also have events.
We were 6 players and one game took 3 hours (including setup and describing the rules). All players where within 4 points when the game ended (no player was left behind and we did not have a run away leader.
I can see that there are publishers that are interested in this game. It is a good basic game. I will concentrate on the problems that we had.

The graphics or the game component design has to be updated. I know that this will be redesigned when a publisher gets the game, but this was too messy even for a prototype. This deducts a lot from the feeling of the game.
Instead of having a big gameboard you could have tiles with the different buildings. As a part of the set-up, build the areas. With this you will have a different game each time you play. You also can have more expansion options and does not have the game board problem (more gameboards with more players).

Some of the buildings were very strong. I had library, university and the production center. I did pick 3 cards for free each turn. Combined with the points you get for the buildings, those building were game winner (I did not win but that has other explanations).

We both had leader bashing and King making in our game. I was on my way to win. First I got a fire on my library and got a block on building. After that all cards was reshuffled and I got the resource block and the building block once more (the turns after each other). Another player did win in that turn and the player that blocked me the second time did know that either would I or the player after me win.

We were 6 players and there was too much down time. Actually we all agreed on that this game should be a max limit on 4 players or you have to speed up the game (the time when you can do an action).

There was too little difference between the technologies. The technologies should be more different and you should be able to specialize. Right now it felt like it did not matter what technology you expanded on (as long you get your levels).

I hope this helped.

// Johan

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
August test session

Thanks Johan,

Firstly, let me start of with a big thanks for you and your team for taking the time to playtest it. Your time and feedback really is appreciated.

Quote:
The graphics or the game component design has to be updated. I know that this will be redesigned when a publisher gets the game, but this was too messy even for a prototype. This deducts a lot from the feeling of the game.

Thanks for the feedback, particularly as this is the first game I ever followed through to prototype - I assume you are mainly talking about the board? I actually had been planning to redo the board about the same time as I got interest from a publisher, so my efforts focussed on answering their queries.

[Aside: the publisher has since declined HCE with business too slow for bringing on additional games - but have said they would be interested when business picks up].

Quote:
Instead of having a big gameboard you could have tiles with the different buildings. As a part of the set-up, build the areas. With this you will have a different game each time you play. You also can have more expansion options and does not have the game board problem (more gameboards with more players).

This was actually in the rules I sent in to the publisher as an untried variant (based on comments by SiskNY I think when I put up HCE in the Games Design Workshop). The publisher preferred fixed boards, but was thinking of possibly considering a 2-sided board (1 side for 3-4 players, 1 side for 5-6 players), costs permitting.

Still an idea worth thinking about though ...

Quote:
Some of the buildings were very strong. I had library, university and the production center. I did pick 3 cards for free each turn. Combined with the points you get for the buildings, those building were game winner (I did not win but that has other explanations).

Agreed that it can be quite a powerful combination. The danger is if it takes too long to set up (noting these buildings down have many VPs themselves), particularly if it means over-developing an area of technology (a key part fo the game is not using too many actions to over-develop your technology). As such, it is a strategy that does well, but won't always win.

Quote:
We both had leader bashing and King making in our game. I was on my way to win. First I got a fire on my library and got a block on building. After that all cards was reshuffled and I got the resource block and the building block once more (the turns after each other). Another player did win in that turn and the player that blocked me the second time did know that either would I or the player after me win.

That's a hard one to address. I was contemplating removing the event cards altogether but the publisher really liked their inclusion (and they have halved in number from then!). Also, they might be important to avoid a run-away leader. hmmm ...

Quote:
We were 6 players and there was too much down time. Actually we all agreed on that this game should be a max limit on 4 players or you have to speed up the game (the time when you can do an action).

You are probably right - I hadn't played the game above 4 players and the game had already been tweaked a lot to speed up the game after the changes requested by the publisher (a good change - giving people a choice of the top face-down card or one of three of face-up cards - but it added a lot to down time).

Game play does speed up a lot after 1-2 games, but people have to enjoy the game enough to get past those 1st 1-2 games!

Of interest, was there much/any trading (noting that trading and purchasing tech can now only be down out of turn - to speed up play)? I often found limited trading early on which generally tried uop over the game.

Quote:
There was too little difference between the technologies. The technologies should be more different and you should be able to specialize. Right now it felt like it did not matter what technology you expanded on (as long you get your levels).

Fair call. Only agriculture is really different as a technology. Some people go for commerce for the improved marketplace, while getting the library and production centres are also popular. In a sense, specialisation works best when you specialise in something no-one has (which is hard to control!) as it means the face-up cards on the decks that you want don't tend to get taken by others ... and you can often generate usual trades to keep you growing at a steady rate.

Quote:
I hope this helped.

It definitely did. Thanks again to you and your fellow playtesters.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
August test session

Quote:
Thanks for the feedback, particularly as this is the first game I ever followed through to prototype - I assume you are mainly talking about the board?

Yes it was mainly the gameboard that was the problem. We had some problem with the cards but that was because they have the same back side ;).

Quote:
Quote:
Instead of having a big gameboard you could have tiles with the different buildings. As a part of the set-up, build the areas. With this you will have a different game each time you play. You also can have more expansion options and does not have the game board problem (more gameboards with more players).

This was actually in the rules I sent in to the publisher as an untried variant (based on comments by SiskNY I think when I put up HCE in the Games Design Workshop). The publisher preferred fixed boards, but was thinking of possibly considering a 2-sided board (1 side for 3-4 players, 1 side for 5-6 players), costs permitting.

Still an idea worth thinking about though ...
If you ever do a version with tales, I be happy to test it (but this time with 4 players).

Quote:
Quote:
We both had leader bashing and King making in our game. I was on my way to win. First I got a fire on my library and got a block on building. After that all cards was reshuffled and I got the resource block and the building block once more (the turns after each other). Another player did win in that turn and the player that blocked me the second time did know that either would I or the player after me win.

That's a hard one to address. I was contemplating removing the event cards altogether but the publisher really liked their inclusion (and they have halved in number from then!). Also, they might be important to avoid a run-away leader. hmmm ...
I don´t think that you should address this as a problem. Just make a note of it. If you have the possibility to block a player for a turn you will get this effect. I think you should keep the possibility.

Quote:
Of interest, was there much/any trading (noting that trading and purchasing tech can now only be down out of turn - to speed up play)? I often found limited trading early on which generally tried uop over the game.

There was nearly no trading at all (this was our first try of this game and we tried to learn the mechanism without messing things up with trading).

// Johan

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game time

Johan,

I'm thinking again about the playing time (primarily for 3-4 player games). My experience is that players familar with the game can knock of a game over in about 1.5 hours now, particularly if players are creative in their trading early one.

My question is - based on your experience with the game and your personal preferences, what do you think the optimal playing time for HCE should be (i.e. how long do you think a game like that should go for, rather than how long it actually goes for)?

Thanks
Bill

edit - currented 304 players to 3-4 players - Thanks Scurra!

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: Game time

GeminiWeb wrote:
I'm thinking again about the playing time (primarily for 304 player games).
I reckon that one would be about two-and-a-half days? ;-))

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
August test session

Hi Bill

I think that 1-2 hours would be the optimized time (1-1.5 hour for experienced players). You should not go above 2 hours for a 4 player game. 2 hours make it just right for an evening and as an 1 hour game the game can be used as an evening complement for a shorter game (Kingdoms, Carcassone and so on).

The optimized time can be a little subjective issue. If you don’t have so much downtime for the players (I believe that the downtime for this game is acceptable in a 4 player game), but if you can reduce it more then the game length can increase (When my daughter for the first time played Advanced Civilization (with 7 players around the table) she refused to believe that we had played for 5 hours (we wanted a break). She was so committed to the game that she believed that it had taken mostly 2).
If you want to add the 5th and 6th player the game (maybe as an expansion) then you have to reduce the downtime and that require changes in the rules (that has to be done now). Otherwise, I would not try to optimize the game right now.

There are ways to reduce the time without changing the rules. Mostly are the components the issue. I have seen game time been reduced by up to 75% when the components where designed for the game (and visualize the game so you get an overview without reading). In your case it is the game board. I think that the game time can be reduced with a little more then 10% with these actions (15 minutes in a 2 hour game).
If you directly on the table could:
- See what effect a building have (symbols is the best but it can also work with texts).
- See what type of building you have without reading the text (this can be done later) (you should still have the text).
- Mostly remove the information on the technology level table (that you could build marketplace or a library) and add it to the gamebord where you build. This can be different background colors for the technology combined with intense for the level (also use symbols for this (colorblind peoples). If you do this actions you can later make expansions with new gameboard parts (with new buildings) and you don’t have to update the tables.

// Johan

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
August test session

Thanks again Johan,

Sounds like the playing time is about rigth then (for 3-4 players), although speeding it up slightly wouldn't hurt either.

I especially like (and appreciate) your comments about the design of the board. I'll give it some thought.

Bill

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut