6 ms·

Thanks! I can't say I disagree — we hoped to structure the tutorial as a sequence of rules, but the explanations tend to grow. A concise reference would indeed

Thanks! I can't say I disagree — we hoped to structure the tutorial as a sequence of rules, but the explanations tend to grow. A concise reference would indeed be good. > This desperately needs a attack result preview Not too hard, just waiting for all the feedback to roll in before deciding either way. If we stay sitting on the fence, it might make its way in as a "tutor" mode :)

sanderjd 3y ago
Personally, I disagree on adding this, outside a "tutor" mode. Figuring out if I'm blundering (and requiring my opponent to do the same) is a big part of the fun. Without that potential for mistake, I think it would be like chess masters playing themselves to a draw in every game.
- jsnell 3y ago
  I don't think that's a good analogy. In chess, there's no question of how a move will resolve. You might not be able to predict the future consequences of the move, but every single player will always know without error what the board state will be after the move. That's not the case here; any time you attack, there are two possible end states for the board. It's often not immediately obvious which of the two you'll end up in, but the outcome is deterministic and the process to determine the outcome is mechanical. The optimal way to play the game is to just manually do all these mechanical dictionary lookups and rule checks. That's tedious, not fun. Having a battle preview (and word highlighting as suggested elsewhere) wouldn't actually remove any of the actual skill involved in memorizing a word list, reading upside down, or being able to visualize the outcomes. Having that knowledge is a prerequisite for building a good board. All that these better visualizations achieve is allow people to build that knowledge and those skills organically while playing the game. And "playing the game" is a key part there. In the current state the game is so unergonomic that I predict 99.9% of the players bounce before winning a single game on the easiest difficulty, and never return. Chess can afford to be harsh and unforgiving because it's got hundreds of years of momentum behind it, and a history of being played on a board without any digital quality of life features. New games don't have that benefit. It's probably more instructive to look at other word games. What happens in Scrabble if you use an invalid word? You forfeit a turn. Worldle? Nothing. In this game you'll lose a dozen rounds worth of board development.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Some more feedback after trying to play the game again in a mode where I'd at least be certain of the outcome of my own moves: - Opening the dictionary lookup requires two clicks, and then a third to focus the text entry. It needs a hotkey, and must focus the text entry no matter how it was opened. - I'd expect to be able to dismiss the dictionary lookup page with Esc, but it requires yet one click. - The dictionary lookup covers up parts of the board, and makes the visible parts hard to read. This makes looking up multiple words in one go pretty inconvenient.
    - liambigelow 3y ago
      Thanks for the great notes! Agree on all front re: the dictionary ergonomics. We'll look at smoothing that out (mobile is currently the blocker there, but everything is solvable :) Re: visualizations, you make great points. Definitely something for us to mull over, and I do think some amount of this will make it into the game (at least behind an option, which defaults to on). Thanks again!
  - florbo 3y ago
    > the game is so unergonomic that I predict 99.9% of the players bounce before winning a single game on the easiest difficulty Yup, I like a good puzzle game but the interface is limiting and (despite reading the tutorial numerous times) the battle results aren't intuitive. I'd describe my reaction as "immediate disinterest".
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    > That's not the case here; any time you attack, there are two possible end states for the board. I'm not sure what you mean by this. What are the two possible end states? You mean, depending on whether the tile you placed results in a valid or invalid word? I guess I think a limited more form of the suggestion, just indicating whether the new words are valid, would be ok. > The optimal way to play the game is to just manually do all these mechanical dictionary lookups and rule checks. I don't think so? The optimal way to play has to do with planning ahead based on the current board and your hand and the probability that you'll draw different letters. Understanding how attacks are going to resolve isn't one of the hard parts; I'm sorry for the chess analogies, but (assuming you know whether your resulting words are valid) it is just akin to counting how many attackers and defenders a square will have after you put a piece there, to determine if you're blundering it for free or losing a trade. > It's probably more instructive to look at other word games. I'm not so sure, because those games don't have as much interactivity between the sides (or any sides at all). I think the better analogy might be games that have a "battle resolution" step. This game's resolution step is a bit more complex than games like Risk, but far less complex than games like MtG. But in all of those games, part of reaching the right answer to the question of "is it a good idea to attack?" involves having a good understanding of what will happen if you do, and asking a computer for that answer is lame, IMO. > New games don't have that benefit. This seems like an argument for new games to cater to a least common denominator. That's right if the goal is to get bought by the NYT, but I think it's a bummer for labors of love.
someone7x 3y ago
To chime in further, the battle log would be more legible if it listed the rules that applied. Eg: Defender bonus = 2 Shortest word = 2 (*in*, top, sugar) Attacker word = 5 (*twine*) Attacker wins (5-4=1) At least for me I’m always getting ganked and trying to decipher the battle log to see why it didn’t do what I expected. That being said, thanks it is fun.
- liambigelow 3y ago
  Nice! We've had this on the list for a while so this is great validation for building it :)
dr_kiszonka 3y ago
The game looks great! One way to fix the tutorial is to make it more interactive than just asking players to place a specific tile in a specific place. Once you explain the most fundamental rules, introduce subsequent ones in the form of mini games where players decide what tiles to put and where, and can lose. Have a look at the Queen's Gambit game about chess. It is free if you have a Netflix subscription. One feature that I would request is to let me organize my tiles. Just my 2 cents.
- liambigelow 3y ago
  Good ideas, will check out the queens gambit game :)

sanderjd 3y ago

Personally, I disagree on adding this, outside a "tutor" mode. Figuring out if I'm blundering (and requiring my opponent to do the same) is a big part of the fun. Without that potential for mistake, I think it would be like chess masters playing themselves to a draw in every game.

jsnell 3y ago
I don't think that's a good analogy. In chess, there's no question of how a move will resolve. You might not be able to predict the future consequences of the move, but every single player will always know without error what the board state will be after the move. That's not the case here; any time you attack, there are two possible end states for the board. It's often not immediately obvious which of the two you'll end up in, but the outcome is deterministic and the process to determine the outcome is mechanical. The optimal way to play the game is to just manually do all these mechanical dictionary lookups and rule checks. That's tedious, not fun. Having a battle preview (and word highlighting as suggested elsewhere) wouldn't actually remove any of the actual skill involved in memorizing a word list, reading upside down, or being able to visualize the outcomes. Having that knowledge is a prerequisite for building a good board. All that these better visualizations achieve is allow people to build that knowledge and those skills organically while playing the game. And "playing the game" is a key part there. In the current state the game is so unergonomic that I predict 99.9% of the players bounce before winning a single game on the easiest difficulty, and never return. Chess can afford to be harsh and unforgiving because it's got hundreds of years of momentum behind it, and a history of being played on a board without any digital quality of life features. New games don't have that benefit. It's probably more instructive to look at other word games. What happens in Scrabble if you use an invalid word? You forfeit a turn. Worldle? Nothing. In this game you'll lose a dozen rounds worth of board development.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Some more feedback after trying to play the game again in a mode where I'd at least be certain of the outcome of my own moves: - Opening the dictionary lookup requires two clicks, and then a third to focus the text entry. It needs a hotkey, and must focus the text entry no matter how it was opened. - I'd expect to be able to dismiss the dictionary lookup page with Esc, but it requires yet one click. - The dictionary lookup covers up parts of the board, and makes the visible parts hard to read. This makes looking up multiple words in one go pretty inconvenient.
  - liambigelow 3y ago
    Thanks for the great notes! Agree on all front re: the dictionary ergonomics. We'll look at smoothing that out (mobile is currently the blocker there, but everything is solvable :) Re: visualizations, you make great points. Definitely something for us to mull over, and I do think some amount of this will make it into the game (at least behind an option, which defaults to on). Thanks again!
- florbo 3y ago
  > the game is so unergonomic that I predict 99.9% of the players bounce before winning a single game on the easiest difficulty Yup, I like a good puzzle game but the interface is limiting and (despite reading the tutorial numerous times) the battle results aren't intuitive. I'd describe my reaction as "immediate disinterest".
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > That's not the case here; any time you attack, there are two possible end states for the board. I'm not sure what you mean by this. What are the two possible end states? You mean, depending on whether the tile you placed results in a valid or invalid word? I guess I think a limited more form of the suggestion, just indicating whether the new words are valid, would be ok. > The optimal way to play the game is to just manually do all these mechanical dictionary lookups and rule checks. I don't think so? The optimal way to play has to do with planning ahead based on the current board and your hand and the probability that you'll draw different letters. Understanding how attacks are going to resolve isn't one of the hard parts; I'm sorry for the chess analogies, but (assuming you know whether your resulting words are valid) it is just akin to counting how many attackers and defenders a square will have after you put a piece there, to determine if you're blundering it for free or losing a trade. > It's probably more instructive to look at other word games. I'm not so sure, because those games don't have as much interactivity between the sides (or any sides at all). I think the better analogy might be games that have a "battle resolution" step. This game's resolution step is a bit more complex than games like Risk, but far less complex than games like MtG. But in all of those games, part of reaching the right answer to the question of "is it a good idea to attack?" involves having a good understanding of what will happen if you do, and asking a computer for that answer is lame, IMO. > New games don't have that benefit. This seems like an argument for new games to cater to a least common denominator. That's right if the goal is to get bought by the NYT, but I think it's a bummer for labors of love.

someone7x 3y ago

To chime in further, the battle log would be more legible if it listed the rules that applied. Eg: Defender bonus = 2 Shortest word = 2 (*in*, top, sugar) Attacker word = 5 (*twine*) Attacker wins (5-4=1) At least for me I’m always getting ganked and trying to decipher the battle log to see why it didn’t do what I expected. That being said, thanks it is fun.

liambigelow 3y ago
Nice! We've had this on the list for a while so this is great validation for building it :)

dr_kiszonka 3y ago

The game looks great! One way to fix the tutorial is to make it more interactive than just asking players to place a specific tile in a specific place. Once you explain the most fundamental rules, introduce subsequent ones in the form of mini games where players decide what tiles to put and where, and can lose. Have a look at the Queen's Gambit game about chess. It is free if you have a Netflix subscription. One feature that I would request is to let me organize my tiles. Just my 2 cents.

liambigelow 3y ago
Good ideas, will check out the queens gambit game :)