In-Class Playtest 1

William's group enjoying the game

In-Class Playtest #1 was held on November 06, 2023 in the G Building with members of William's group, and features Iteration 1.1 of the game.

Within the same playtest, each research pair within our development team has different preferences for recording their study and observations. The section in this page are divided by how each pair records their study.

Previous Playtest: Internal Playtest #1

Next Playtest: Internal Playtest #2

## Franciszek Ryt & Rajat Upadhayaya

### Objective

*During the playtest we wanted to see the game being played solely on the basis of the rules. We also wanted to gather some initial data for our research - the team collecting strategies and how those teams behave during the game. We wanted to assess what the players see as the most important element of the game and what works within the game and what needs to be changed.*

Rules for the iteration:

* Rulebook V.1
* Almanac V.1

The playtest was performed with three people from our class and it lasted ~1 hour. All players had teams consisting of three Heroes.

* Wima - Team one: Earth Monkey, Water Dog, Fire Fox, 3pts
* William - Team two: Snow Bunny, Wind Panda, Water Dog, 16pts
* Anton - Team three: Snow Bunny, Fire Fox, Water Dog, 8pts

### Process:

*Notes from the playtest:*

* Spawns are unbalanced since 2 players chose sectors close to each other while the 3rd player was on the other side of the map.
* They needed to keep track of points themselves.
* Probably needing a way to track turns, players were confused which turn it was.
* Game went pretty slowly so maybe total turns could be reduced.
* Can you use ability if you are frozen by the bunny? Because some abilities say move in them.
* Player thought you could drag people into the wall to deal damage.
* Players wondered if they could be on the same tile if it was occupied.
* Confusion with Bunny ability, the problem with end of turn vs start of next round.
* Player 1 lost a monkey but then on their turn they did not respawn the monkey since they thought it would remain dead. Players are confused when to respawn a dead hero.
* Players discuss being able to place walls down on the points tile.
* Player 2 commented on how the mental warfare and tactics were fun.
* Alliances were forming. Player 2 was thinking on how to avoid being killed by this alliance.
* Player wondered if Heroes could enter the Bunny’s ice ring.
* Players said that dividing things in 2 rounds is strange.
* Players wondering about dead characters' initiative EX. Dead Heroes
* Player 1 passed a turn
* Board could be made smaller for smaller amount of players
* Players referenced a “mental warfare” that they felt was important in the game
* Player 1 kept their team concise at first but they were dispersed by the killing of the Monkey. From now on they avoided combat and had their Heroes in wildly different areas of the map just to be out of the combat range of other players.
* Player 2 started with their team dispersed but quickly made them work together in capturing the flags. They fought with the Player 3 over control of the flag points (who also made their team work closely together) and killed their Heroes who tried to get back to the main fight area after being respawned (fight took place close to the centre of the board).

*We have made a little discussion segment after the playtest. We asked them about their overall feelings, the best and the worst elements of the game in their opinion.*

* Player 1: chose simple to understand Heroes due to inexperience with board games. Rules were understandable for them but it was an overwhelming choice.
* Player 2: rules were not a problem for them, was confused about the black points (inaccessible tiles) and how some more detailed skills work with them). They have also felt that Bunny was limited in their power.
* Player 3: Regretted not having Panda, said that the rounds do not feel natural and easy to understand, especially confusing when combined with some abilities (Ice Storm of Bunny which last till the end of the round -> different lasting times for different players), respawning and gathering points.

### Results:

* Rounds were confusing and we understood the need to rework how we measure lasting time of the abilities and how we make new flags spawn. We have thought of making the flag placement dynamic and switching for new after somebody got a point from them.
* We have received feedback that respawning was not as punishable as it should have been.
* The flag spawning was too random for the players and we wanted to make sure that somehow the players can predict where the flag will be spawned next turn.
* Water dog was found to be very tough to kill and made it very hard or easy to kill other Heroes.
* Snow bunny’s ability needed to be made better
* Fire Fox ability was too limited in its use.

### Research notes:

In this playtest we have seen two teams based on the dog hero ability to switch health between enemies and friends. The winning strategy was utilising the dog to switch any close opponents health with a lower health of the damaged teammate, move them closer to the team by Panda's ability and immobiles them with bunny's snowstorm. The target would alos suffer some wound and it wuld become immobilised for its whole turn, if it had survived the damage sustained. The other strategy based itself on having two melee heroes - bunny and fox - that would kill anything that the dog has weakened by switching health points between them. Player 3 wished they had panda, bacause it would resolve the range issues they were having due to the starting positions.

Another choice, the losing strategy, was to combine fox and monkey as a offence-defence team. Fox would damage the opponents and the monkey would later block them off and put the fox out of the way of danger. Player 1 tried to avoid getting close to dogs in order not to get their health stolen. Their focus was on not getting killed, only later at getting points. Player have regretted not getting the panda character and stated that it would be useful to use it with the monkey to control the crowd on the board.

## Igor Sogorovecs & Stan Nguyen

### Previously, on Iteration 1.1...

Iteration 1.1 followed the base game and Internal Playtest 1. For all intents and purposes, it should be considered the first true iteration of the game, as 1.0 was merely a prototype. At this stage, the game includes the following systems:

* The five heroes: Howie, Fia, Haru, Silac, Regu - showcasing their stats, abilities, and how each functions within a team composition.

* The flag generation system: currently encompassing 180 possible spawn points. Over half of these spawn "minor" flags, yielding lesser points, while the remaining spawn "major" flags, offering higher points.

* The combat system: involving dealing damage through abilities and respawning within the same turn if defeated.

* The arena: a hexagonal battlefield divided into six equal pizza-slice sectors, also known as "Heaven." The arena is further segmented by two rings - an inner ring and an outer ring.

### Aim

As our research question centers on identifying game systems, or the absence thereof, that may trigger negative behaviors in players, we advocate for playtesting unfinished products. This approach enables participants to assist in pinpointing frustrating features or their absence. Equally crucial for our research is observing not only their responses but also their behaviors, whether conscious or subconscious, as these behaviors carry psychological implications that survey response could not properly convey.

The first playtest also serves as a pilot episode for our research methodologies.

### Methodologies

Within the same course Game Design 3: System Design, we have members of the development team reach out to other groups within the same course, to exchange game one-on-one and perform playtest. The representative for each group would agree on a date, location, and duration of the playtest before proceeding.

At the playtest, the two groups exchange game and play in order. Which means we would play other group's game and review it, before they would in turn play our game and review it, or vice versa.

Before the playtest, we disclaim to the playtesters that for the purpose of our research, our data collection consists of taking notes of their responses and interactions both during and after the playtest by word documents, and that their responses would be scrutinized in terms of anonymous player identification numbers e.g Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, etc.

Our data collection during the playtest is divided into two responsibilities, one for each person:

* One is responsible for identifying and recording any negative or ambigiously mixed remarks uttered verbally or nonverbally by the players throughout the duration of the playtest, verbatim. These remarks are judged based on tone, implications, and or facial/gestural expressions from the players. The responses recorded here go into our research as part of measuring the player's general level of frustration.
* One is responsible for observing the playtest and taking notes on general gameplay highlights and lowlights; as well as player interaction highlights and lowlights. The observations recorded here do not go into research, but only seeks to assist future iteration designs, or complement other data.

After the playtest, each player is invited to sit down with us for a one-on-one interview. The players are notified that their response would be recorded as a word document, with their name rendered anonymous (we would only be identifying them through assigned player number) for all responses.

The interview consists of 8 short-answer questions, and is a mix of Yes/No questions and qualitative short-answer questions, the latter of which we advise players to keep as concise as possible.

### "Negative Remarks" Results

#### Player 1

A total of 17 negative remarks were recorded. Some example of which being:

* "So are you just gonna attack me right away?"
* "I don't want you here! Leave!"
* "I can put this on your head and damage you!"
* "Fuck off dude! Am I just an HP resource?"

The central theme behind this player's remark seems to be that they are in frequent clash with Player 2, as they both spawn very close by each other. Player 1 unfortunately held the short end of the stick in this dynamic, and was frequently attacked by Player 2, regardless of their strategies to run away or defend themselves.

#### Player 2

A total of 11 negative remarks were recorded, some example of which being:

* "I drag you to me and hurt you!"
* "I hope they won't appear at green ones, then you are screwed."
* "Ooh, noo points for you."

The central theme behind this player's remark seems to be that they are in frequent clash with Player 2, as they both spawn very close by each other. Player 2 was the aggressor of this dynamic, and seemed to be in playful glee when attacking Player 1's heroes.

#### Player 3

This player remained mostly quiet throughout the playthrough, with also limited non-verbal communications.

### Playtest Notes

#### Set-Up

* They ask about the differentiation between team and board matching color.
* They did not use the shuffle box as intended.
* Everyone had a dog, even though they didn't recognize it at first.
* They knew how to use the HP tracker.

#### Playtime

* They confuse "Turn 1" as the beginning of the turn. As intended it is Turn 0. Because of this confusion, they didn't put any flag down on the first turn.
* They questioned if many people can occupy the same tile at once.
* They questioned if many people can occupy the same flag tile and stack points.
* A player turn can take long depending on who is making the decisions.
* There are no systems to keep track of points.
* They took away the flag each time they score it. It's supposed to stay until the next spawn.
* "Fia is good for first turn player."
* Confusion on dog's HP mechanic.
* Dog makes Player 2's team immortal if they can't one round it.
* "Can you put walls on flag tiles?"
* P1 just runs away and doesn't fight anyone.
* Players have difficulty keeping track of rounds.
* Fia kind of suicide herself when she does her jump freezing.
* It doesn't mention that Fia can hop on top of herself.
* They mention the possibility of Initiative going down after takedowns.

### Interview Q&A

*What did you enjoy the most in the game?*

* Player 1: "The different characters."
* Player 2: "The characters."
* Player 3: "It was looking at different characters and their abilities and deciding what can I do now, especially how I can use them together."

*One word feeling?*

* Player 1: "Stress."
* Player 2: "Calm."
* Player 3: "Uh...I don't know."

*What did you feel most frustrating in the game? If no then what do you think would give other players frustration?*

* Player 1: "The fact that I was used as an HP bank."
* Player 2: "Not being able to kill as much. For others, it would be frustrated when getting killed by me."
* Player 3: "It's an antagonistic game, you are fighting each other, it gets into 'I hate you' kinda thing."

*If you can design this game, how would you make it fairer?*

* Player 1: "Probably dumped the power of the panda, or upgrade every other characters to the power of panda, because panda is very powerful."
* Player 2: "It's fair right now. If I win, it's fair."
* Player 3: "There are balancing needed on some characters and I'd change how turn and round order works."

*How much time did you feel like you were playing?*

* Player 1: "50 mins to an hour."
* Player 2: "Probably about 50 mins."
* Player 3: "An hour."

*Did you feel like you really hate what your opponent was doing?*

* Player 1: "Yes. He stole my HP a lot."
* Player 2: "No...I mean yes, I hated when other characters were using different abilities on me and were preventing me from moving as much as I wanted to."
* Player 3: "Oh yes."

*What was your strategy?*

* Player 1: "Try not to get my health stolen and run away."
* Player 2: "Kill people, get points, stop people from getting points."
* Player 3: "My strategy was to pick characters with most damage and trying to kill other characters as fast as possible."

*Did you feel like giving up at any point?*

* Player 1: "Yes, when I kept getting HP stolen."
* Player 2: "No ... or should I say yes?
* Player 3: "I did understand that I'm not gonna win, but I still tried to collect as much points as possible and prevent other people from getting points."

### Discussion

Based on the results of the "Negative Remarks" and our Interviews, we discovered that:

* Clash between players invite negative behaviors. We define clash in our game as physical confrontation between the controllable heroes of each player, who have conflicting goals and interests in the confrontation. This effect is further amplified by the frequency at which a clash takes place.
* A competitive game naturally is more antagonistic, and will cause frustration.
* Unbalance in the hero system causes certain team compositions to grant higher "affordances" in the gameplay than others. For instance, Fia's AoE is too limited, Howie's ability is still too restrictive, and Haru HP swap is too potent with his current stats. Affordance here is defined in terms of how long a hero can survive, the impacts they have on the map, and how it contributes to the winning conditions.
* The round and turn order is too limiting or confusing, which includes flag spawning generations.
* Players wanted to give up by the end if they forecast not being able to win.

Iteration 1.2 will serve to address these design issues informed by our playtest - to alleviate frustrations in players.

## Emma Andersson & Sanna Helsing

*No data recorded here on the group's shared iteration wiki, but we have them recorded on a personal Excel file!*