Talk:Feedback/@comment-4508987-20111020164747

The good stuff:

This feels like a clever combat system that, with some tweaking, could be implemented in many types of games that requires players to battle each other, the rules however needs a lot of work so that the system is fully understandable. It would probably help a lot with graphics to show the playing area and different zones.

We like how the system where you turn up two combat cards allows the players to plan ahead for next round. The system seems well thought through.

The card that allowed players to remove a card from opponent’s preparation area was a nice feature that helps preventing negative loops where the player(s) that won first and second round got too much advantage over the others.

Improvements to consider:

The card that allowed players to remove opponents card could be extracted from this system and instead be a secondary system itself. Because with one system you sacrifice half your actions in order to have one player “suffer”.

Rules are very confusing and hard to understand.

End phase is unclear in the rules; do you discard the playing zone or the entire hand?

It states nowhere how and when to use the sabotage cards.

If players draw cards to solve even score, the rule doesn’t state what happens if one of the players draw a negative card, does he lose because it awards no pints or can he instantly use it to make the opponent lose?

It was unclear that we should only use 5 competition round cards, we played it keeping to turn up more from the pile, if the rules had stated that the game is played in 5 rounds this would have been clearer.

It could be an idea to find a way with less mental arithmetic to calculating the scores. Especially if it’s to be implemented into another game, giving even more things to keep track of.

Conclusion

We feel it’s a smart system that can be usable in many games and we think you should spend some time on rewriting the rules for clarity.

/Team 11