Playtest #30-32
Mar-Apr 2019
Participants: KenK, et al.
Instagram posts: Mar 21
, 23 Mar
Overview
- Testing:
- Someone else teach game to new players
- Reducing customer count by 8
Components & Rules
Baseline rules
(from Ken)
I changed “Lure” to advertise in my teachings and that was received really well by players. As you and I discussed, language adds a lot to the game. So when someone would say, “I am going to advertise food in Manato.” It began to feel really immersive.
-
| 2- player |
70 mins w/ teach |
Score: Ken: 22- Jonathan: 15 |
- Played w/ main rules except in phase 2 placed both customers on the same location
- Phase 2 seemed to drag on forever. Pretty clear who had won 2-3 rounds before game ended
-
| 3-player |
58 mins w/o teach |
Score: Ben: 15, Ken: 11, Jeremy: 9 |
- Played with the same ruleset as above
- Combined Positive Notes
- Income works really well
- Three cards for a wild feels good, able to do what you need to. Adaptable
- Engaging in every person turn
- Great length and quick turns are nice
- Forced interaction great
- Combined Negative Notes
- Tracks ran out in 3p, felt bad
- Last round feels like the second action is useless and if you’d don’t have the right card it feels bad.
- Station kanji (sp?) too big
-
| 2-player |
66 mins w/ teach |
Score: Ken: 13 - Emily: 13 (Won on having more overall customers) |
- Played with same rulles as above but removed 8 customers, felt like it ended at right time
- Negative Notes
- Ran out of track
- Because of wild rule, feels like late game card draw is less meaningful and bad draws feel bad
- End feels a little flat because you just advertise (mention lure being weird)
- Positive Notes
- “Easy to learn and felt like a better than some of the game you (Ken) have bought.”
- Final Score breakdown
- E- 6, 4, 4, 5
- K- 5, 4, 4, 4,
- E won on more customers overall
“…after I removed 8 customers (one of each resource type), the two-player game seemed to end at a much better moment.”
Suggestions/Actions
For next playtest:
- Reduce customer count by 8