Playtesting Feedback

Week 1
Playtesting Session: 2014-10-07

Number of Players: 3 Total Amount of Rounds Played: 25 First Damage to a Player: Round 2


 * Cavalry are too overpowered at the start of the game when the defending player has not been able to build any defenses
 * Stats needs to be written on the cards to minimize confusion for new players
 * We need to define the attributes of the Archers. Can they shoot at the base towers or only upgraded?
 * What is the special ability of the Archer? Define!
 * Create room for attacking cards that have been queued. They are easily fumbled and players cannot remember which was placed first.
 * The weak take too much damage while the strong take near to none at all.
 * We did not occupy lanes. Players chose freely.
 * At round three no one was thinking about creating alliances.
 * Players often forgot who placed what and where.
 * Max number of farms per player? If someone gets 3-4 farms, they are almost unstoppable
 * To ensure that the players do not forget to move characters, it might be wise to just move the players that are attacking YOU at the start of your turn?
 * The player sitting in the middle was most often attacked. Maybe because he was easiest to reach?
 * Players forget the Turn Order
 * By round 9, there was still only one player who had lost health.
 * Maybe introduce a maximum of cards per player?
 * By round 12, no one had discarded 2 cards for 1 new
 * What happens when a Siege Tower reaches a barricade?
 * Archers have a great impact on the game at Sudden Death
 * With three players, the attacks are more spread across the playing field. Two players makes it a lot more focused and quicker.
 * Once the Defense cards are gone the game becomes a lot more exciting!
 * What happens to the cards that are on the playing field once a player dies?
 * At the end of the game, players have a lot of cards but no money to use it with.

Week 2
Playtesting Sessions: 2014-10-24

Session 1.

Number of Players: 3

Session time: 1 hour. (Ended in break)

Player 1

Group number:1
 * The player barely wants to draw units cards
 * The cost/health wasn't well placed
 * Relocate is a great card! (And it's great fun to watch people get mad when using it) it should cost something thou.
 * 1v1v1 rarely works out since players will gang up.

Player 2

Group number:8  Player 3
 * The player barely wants to draw units cards
 * The game is very time consuming
 * The free action cards are overpowered

Group number: 1
 * Drawing unit cards only hold units, the utility cards are better than the unit cards
 * Gaining only 3 Gold in upkeep cause you to only be able to play 1 unit or 1 defense. Because of the HP balance of units and how towers are attacked building defense is better and the unit usually die faster.
 * Because it's random what you can get the game can go on for longer than necessary, random in a tower defense cause problem.
 * Rounds take to long. Because it's first ,one make a move and then the next it takes long time. Can't buy and Upkeep be a phase that everyone do together and then you attack? because then it would feel like a tower defense because your week side will always be attacked. Try make a phase were everyone can do one thing and then make a phase with turn order.

Session 2

Number of Players: 2

Session time:

Player 1

Group number: 1
 * no incentive to send units early on, taking damage gives power, some balance may be needed I waited after getting damaged early on I waited for a while biding time before unleashing an ungodly shitstorm of units against my opponents basic towers.
 * Income for soliders on field as in tower line wars could make aggressive playing a viable strategy.
 * I felt that the low numbers on cards overall might make balancing hard since raising hp by 1 makes most units 50% stronger, one gold increases income by 33% Longer lanes and faster movement or more hp on the units might also be good.
 * I only played with one other player so some of the multi player dynamics were probobly lost as we were two people trading blows.
 * single round buffs for towers might be an idea?
 * it was quite entertaining, thoug I won and that may be part of it.

Player 1

Week 3
Playtesting Sessions: 2014-10-31

Session 1.

Number of Players: 3

Session time: Around 1 hour

Player 1

Group number: 1
 * The game run much better this time getting a reward for attacking makes attacking actually worh it early on. three players makes the gamemuch more interesting and reaminds me of sissyfight. the new cards worked well but the swordsman need a little nerfing.

Player 2

Group number: 4
 * It was a quite enjoyable game, and I agree with my fellow tester above that it was in its fashion very similar to sissyfight.

Player 3

Group number: 4
 * The cards has to be more clear.
 * Similar to sissyfight.