3 ms·

You either win, and every opposing sequence of tiles that touches the tile you just played is removed, or lose and each of your sequences of tiles including the

by jsnell 3y ago

You either win, and every opposing sequence of tiles that touches the tile you just played is removed, or lose and each of your sequences of tiles including the tile you just played is removed. But it's not just because you played an invalid word thinking it valid, which is what you're suggesting could be fixed. It could also be because something the opponent played that looks like gibberish is actually valid, because you're misunderstanding which words are contributing to a battle, or because you've misunderstood some part of the battle rules entirely. Every single new player is going to be making all of those mistakes, and not just once. Each time that happens, the game in its current form is basically slapping them in the face because of how big the impact of mispredicting the outcome is. Now, most people don't like being hit in the face and will try to avoid it. By insisting that overcoming a bad UI is just another skill, you're pretty much ensuring that most players are driven away before they can be bothered to overcome the UI. > 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 Yes, that's what the game would be about ideally. But that's not what the game is right now. In the current state, what matters the most is not making blunders. You know, the part that you earlier claimed just in the previous message was particularly fun and would be destroyed if the UI was fixed. And there is no actual skill involved in avoiding these blunders. It's just mechanical checking of words and the application of the somewhat unintuitive battle rules. Why are you so insistent on making the game be about rote dictionary checks rather than about the strategy of building a good board? > 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. Even of a labor of love, I'd imagine the goal is to build an active player base. I believe that the game in its current state will not be able to do that, and it's entirely due to bad ergonomics and onboarding. Those should not be a line in the sand! The problems seem entirely fixable without compromising the core design of the game in any way. I mean, I could be wrong. But the good news is that the only person whose opinion actually matters (the OP) should be in a position to evaluate this feedback now. It's a day since the Show HN post, and based on the score I'm guessing that about 10k-20k unique players hit the site as a result. Since the game has a server component, the author should have stats on their progression. How many players finished a game? How many came back the next day for another daily "puzzle"? I'm betting it's a really low percentage for both. If that's the case, then the feedback in this Show HN (not just mine) is pretty clear on what to fix. While if the players aren't actually bouncing off the game, the feedback can probably be ignored :)

sanderjd 3y ago
> It could also be because something the opponent played that looks like gibberish is actually valid, because you're misunderstanding which words are contributing to a battle, or because you've misunderstood some part of the battle rules entirely. I'm coming around to the view that highlighting all valid words would be useful, even outside a "tutor mode", but I'm not sympathetic to the rest of this. Reasoning about how somewhat-complex rules interact is an important part of games with such rules. It lets people with a better grasp of the rules take advantage of opponents making mistakes due to their weaker understanding, or setting traps for them to fall into. Popping up a warning message that gives away the trap and lets you undo your move so as to not fall into it decreases the richness of a game. I'm sorry again, but it just really strikes me as being the same basic thing as a chess client saying "if you move your queen here you're going to be susceptible to a knight fork, confirm move?". And that would be lame. > Every single new player is going to be making all of those mistakes, and not just once. Yes, but this is just a "tutor mode" thing. I agree that a hand-holding experience while people learn the rules would be extremely useful. But I don't want it to hold my hand like this when I'm playing the real game. "You need to learn the rules well to be good at the game" is not "a bad UI". > In the current state, what matters the most is not making blunders. I'm sorry, but no. I played for about an hour and learned the rules for resolving battles. They are a bit complex but they aren't as hard to learn as you're claiming! It's still a very hard game, but not because of blunders. It's hard because I didn't use my hand well at the start, or I went the wrong direction and got taken advantage of on another flank. I really just don't relate to this battle resolution thing being such a big issue, after even a small amount of play. And I honestly have no clue what you're talking about with "making the game be about rote dictionary checks". Again, I don't find this to be the case at all, and find myself using the dictionary infrequently. I have come around to there being some UI improvement here that could be useful, but it's on the margin, not a foundational issue I'm having playing the game. > Even of a labor of love, I'd imagine the goal is to build an active player base. Yes, but there is not a single definition of what that means. Some successful games (and things in general) are broad and shallow and others are narrow and deep. This is not going to be as popular as Wordle. It's way harder and will appeal to way fewer people. But the people it does appeal to may enjoy it more. Lots of people play Wordle a lot, while fewer people are dedicated to doing the Sunday Crossword each week. Both are fine. > But the good news is that the only person whose opinion actually matters (the OP) should be in a position to evaluate this feedback now. On this we agree entirely! And for sure there are lots of improvements that can be made, I'm just unconvinced that it needs so much more handholding as you're suggesting, and would find it less of a fun challenge if it did.

by jsnell 3y ago

sanderjd 3y ago

> It could also be because something the opponent played that looks like gibberish is actually valid, because you're misunderstanding which words are contributing to a battle, or because you've misunderstood some part of the battle rules entirely. I'm coming around to the view that highlighting all valid words would be useful, even outside a "tutor mode", but I'm not sympathetic to the rest of this. Reasoning about how somewhat-complex rules interact is an important part of games with such rules. It lets people with a better grasp of the rules take advantage of opponents making mistakes due to their weaker understanding, or setting traps for them to fall into. Popping up a warning message that gives away the trap and lets you undo your move so as to not fall into it decreases the richness of a game. I'm sorry again, but it just really strikes me as being the same basic thing as a chess client saying "if you move your queen here you're going to be susceptible to a knight fork, confirm move?". And that would be lame. > Every single new player is going to be making all of those mistakes, and not just once. Yes, but this is just a "tutor mode" thing. I agree that a hand-holding experience while people learn the rules would be extremely useful. But I don't want it to hold my hand like this when I'm playing the real game. "You need to learn the rules well to be good at the game" is not "a bad UI". > In the current state, what matters the most is not making blunders. I'm sorry, but no. I played for about an hour and learned the rules for resolving battles. They are a bit complex but they aren't as hard to learn as you're claiming! It's still a very hard game, but not because of blunders. It's hard because I didn't use my hand well at the start, or I went the wrong direction and got taken advantage of on another flank. I really just don't relate to this battle resolution thing being such a big issue, after even a small amount of play. And I honestly have no clue what you're talking about with "making the game be about rote dictionary checks". Again, I don't find this to be the case at all, and find myself using the dictionary infrequently. I have come around to there being some UI improvement here that could be useful, but it's on the margin, not a foundational issue I'm having playing the game. > Even of a labor of love, I'd imagine the goal is to build an active player base. Yes, but there is not a single definition of what that means. Some successful games (and things in general) are broad and shallow and others are narrow and deep. This is not going to be as popular as Wordle. It's way harder and will appeal to way fewer people. But the people it does appeal to may enjoy it more. Lots of people play Wordle a lot, while fewer people are dedicated to doing the Sunday Crossword each week. Both are fine. > But the good news is that the only person whose opinion actually matters (the OP) should be in a position to evaluate this feedback now. On this we agree entirely! And for sure there are lots of improvements that can be made, I'm just unconvinced that it needs so much more handholding as you're suggesting, and would find it less of a fun challenge if it did.