Game designing, things I don't like, what are yours?

Victory Points
The only reason why I would like to use these is as a form of domination points. Meaning, you conquer an objective. And gain points from it that are not used anywhere else.

Then again, getting resources. And having a certain number as a goal for winning is already better in my book. Since, you also need to spend them if needed.

Threshold
It limits me too much in balancing. Other than that, if it would have worked for my designs. I would have switched ages ago. Health tracking isn't always a picknick. More of a nitpick.

The NEED for a SPECIFIC number of players
I prefer games that allow single player and/or co-op (double single player). If you need to fight another player, that too can be fun. But 3 or more players? If some don't like the game, it is game over. Especially if they aren't avaiable. Yet the game NEEDS a set ammount of players.

Banishments
I don't like if parts of a game are banned later on, just because they were too powerfull. Same goes for parts of a game that will never be adressed.
Practical balance should be tested before you add something to the published game. Honouring published parts in keeping those in.
If one of those seems to be OP, simply make a counter or 2. Or 3, idk, keep making counters. It will use value eventually.

Keeping things in Confidentiality
Then F off, for F sake!
Same goes for making false assumptions.

Manuals
Have a bloke test read it.
provide the game with it.
See if they can make sense of it.

If you start with mentioning what cards need to be placed on the table. But the player doesn't even know what cards they are. Perhaps, hmmm?, it is better to, hmmm? Describe the cards first, hmmm? and how they look like?

Changing the game for themselves?
Let them. You might get idea's from it. Don't go nitpicking on what your tester does, doesn't, or changes by accident or intentionally.
Take notice, say said notice, ask for reasons, and you as designer are ALWAYS at fault.
A tester tests your wrongdoings. They cannot do wrong in this themselves, ok?

Player elimination
I hate it when this happens. And in wargames, it can happen slowly too. The player in question will feel it. Thus, game mechanics, pausing the decline with plenty of opportunities to revert it, are recommended.
Or, have them get a phase 2 they roll in. And the last one, rolling in phase 2, will be the real loser.
You die, you become a skelleton warrior.
You die, you get an army of zombies.
You die, you are now a ghost, still poking, clearly the best for taking reveange on the one who defeated you. And you can drag that other player down with them.

It allows for interesting games. Where defeating someone, could mean a certain defeat for yourself in the making.

100% luck (gambling) or 100% determed (puzzles)
Well, clearly a FOW can work with the determed part. But I dislike games with 100% luck. I believe, I got a topic about this somewhere. Having SD reaching out to at most 50% of the spectrum would be best.

Snowballs
Do I have to explain this one?

Alpha
Ok, here is an interesting one. Co-op games where the players have the same role? Someone will probably be the alpha. That is no fun for the other players. This can happen in wargames as well with equal factions. Sure, if one HAS TO BE the alpha, then make sure that other players have their own specific roles to shine in. Then the alpha could be more or less, a guide?

RPG is clear on this. But wargames might need different factions, or have the players get different units.
Example, player 1 has tanks, player 2 has anti tanks, player 3 has anti infantry, player 4 has fodder (preferably with a "free" refill)

Too much text (on a card)
What could the rule of thumb be here?
There are MtG cards that are so complicated and hold so much tekst. 90% of the players don't understand it at all.