More playtests and a "Question" for you(?)

There are three (3) "Population Rounds":

1. Play three (3) Monsters

2. Play two (2) Monsters

3. Play one (1) Monster

So the question is... After EACH ROUND (local resolution) do I add a BATTLE Phase...? For Abilities like "SCRY 3 topmost Monster in your deck" means you take a peek at the 3 topmost cards and figure out IF you want to KEEP some of them ON TOP and which to place AT THE BOTTOM.

This could be VERY important if you are waiting on a "clutch" card in Round #3 for example... So you would play the Monster with SCRY in Round #2 and resolve it immediately before moving on to Round #3.

Very interesting, strategic and useful too!

If we go with battling at the END of all "Population Rounds" this would be like a Round #4: Battle!

This means that each player's Monsters are VISIBLE to them. There is no need to say: "Hmm... Maybe I should save some points for future rounds...?" And therefore the Planning is unnecessary because you use your points during Round #4... (During Battling which goes back-and-forth).

This makes total sense for ABILITIES which Interact with OTHER Monsters. Let's say I have a Monster who can ABSORB DAMAGE from an attack of an ADJACENT Monster...! Locally it is pretty useless as an ability. I mean at most you can absorb damage for 2 cards (Left and Right).

But globally you can expand this and maybe be capable of absorbing damage for 4 of your cards in play! So this ability is more interesting GLOBALLY.

Now I guess I could do BOTH. But again this can lead to POOR planning... IDK it doesn't "feel right" TBH. Maybe there is another alternative that I am not seeing...? Or something CLEVER that I have yet to think about which could offer me a solution to my dilemma(?!)

Anyhow if anyone has questions, comments, suggestions, feedback please feel free to ask away and I will do my best to answer you.

Cheers all!

I am thinking that the "Mathematical Equation" (Formulae) should total up to ZERO (0) Points. Otherwise things like "Minus -" or "Division /" are obviously not to be applied in the event that the HIGHEST score wins.

So if you have a Value of 9 and an Division by 3... 9 / 3 = 3 points.

Makes much more SENSE now to use a Division. Add to this a -3... 3 - 3 = 0.

Again making use of a subtraction operation. This hasn't really solved my issue. But it solved another one of my issues with various operators that seemed defunct because of the Victory Goal.

And to answer @Juzek's question: the abilities are on the Monster cards themselves. I don't want to share the card layout ATM ... Because it is a VERY Novel Card Design... The reason for me to continue with this DESIGN ... Is because every time I look at these cards, I think: "Hmm... These cards are cool and have much potential!"

I want to stick away from symbols and prefer explicitly listing the abilities on each card. It's much easier to read an ability than memorize it's symbol. Plus I have 15 Monsters each unique. I don't want 15 symbols, or one for each of the Monsters... When you view it that way, it's clearer with the ability as a description.

I also want to have a DESIGN that is "tight". What I mean is having operators for NO REASON blows. If you are NOT going to use some of them and only boost your deck with Additions (Plus +) for achieving the HIGHEST possible score is a bit TOO FAMILIAR.

But achieving a ZERO (0) as a form of balance... Sounds much better!

Let me think about it some more... And of course, other comments welcome too.

While Add and Subtract are VALUE-Based operators, Multiply, Divide and Exponent are NOT. Meaning Multiply, Divide and Exponent by 1 all result in a stalemate of the VALUE (as computed in the formulae). This is good because they are NEUTRAL when it comes to using them for computing; meaning worst case you make your operand "1" and nothing changes.

That's very cool and valuable in a game where you are trying to compute a specific VALUE (in the 3 to 18 range). Sometimes lower scores impact the game LESS in that there are less resources to go around and therefore impacting the Monsters less ... What I mean you can impact the opponent's stack less because you don't have sufficient resources to make a deep impact (like exiling a card because it has dropped to 0).

BTW exiling means that the Monster gets flipped over and no longer has an impact on the formulae (scoring round). Simply that "Monster is exiled" and has no value or consequence when computing the overall score given the remaining Monsters/cards.

My IDEAs are something like this:

1. Play 3 Monsters into Level 1 Position (first row).

2. Play 2 Monsters into Level 2 Position (second row).

3. Battle between all 10 Monsters in play (5 each side).

4. Play 1 Boss Monster into Level 3 Position (third row).

5. That Boss can attack the opposing two (2) rows (Level 1 & 2).

Now for some observations.

When the Battle Round first ensues, there already is a MAJORITY of Monsters in play (5 out 6). The only one left is the BOSS. This is a bit more flexible and perhaps not as "straight-forwards" as my original concept. But it does impact the game and make it MORE strategic.

Next when the Boss is played... The Boss CANNOT be attacked directly. He also has the capacity to attack ANY of the opponent's Monsters on the first two (2) Levels (1 & 2) but not the opposing Boss.

This using something like a SCRY can give your Boss a lot of POWER to make an impact into the opposing player's stack of Monsters. Again the majority (5 out 6) which is pretty reasonable IMHO.

So the Boss is a bit special and we have two "combat" rounds in the game. This is very much a COMPROMISE in terms of what I had originally and what I am now proposing. As you can see, it is a rather CLEVER solution which is sort of a HYBRID of Local vs. Global Resolution. And it makes some sense cases to leave some Mana for your Boss (if you have a good idea which Monster you will play into that position ... And therefore understand his impact) or ignore the Boss altogether and focus on the 1st Round of Combat (Level 1 & 2) only.

To me this solution seems like the BEST possible "compromise".

It allows for a more sensible population of the Monsters (5 out of 6) and gives you much forethought into what YOUR Boss is going to be in the 3rd Population Round. Battles are more strategic and also allow for planning with the Boss Monster.

This seems like a solution to a "complex" problem... It is not too "out-there" but it does take into the fact the model (Monsters, Levels and Abilities) for the game and makes it a less RANDOM solution. I get the impression that much thought was put into this "outcome".

What do you think???

Does this all sound more reasonable? Do you think there are other options?? And if you do, please feel free to share with me your feedback and comments.

This is rather NEW as a solution, so it's going to take me some time to absorb it and see if there are any issues with it.

Cheers all!

Do you also like games that DIRECTLY MESS with your opponent's plans??? Not like Ticket To Ride where you might stumble upon a track that your opponent required, no this is actually battling the RIGHT Monsters and leaving the opponent in quite "the pickle" where he/she needs to re-adjust their strategy to comply with the odd nature of the Monsters in-play!?

Please let me know in a comment other games that do something similar! Or give me some questions/comments/feedback concerning the approach and if you see any ways that it could be problematic.

Cheers all!

While the two (2) "Population" round were cool, the first (1st) "Battle" round was less intuitive. I have it going back-and-forth between both players and ... It's less than overwhelming. Even with five (5) cards, everything that is going on them, leads to "confusion". I won't say "Analysis-Paralysis" but things that are less than intuitive.

Like Dealing 1 Power of Damage then the opponent HEALS it and then we repeat the exact SAME steps (1 Power of Damage followed by a 2nd heal)... Not at all what I need and expect from this "game".

Each Monster has a Primary Attack and a Monster Tactic. But due to the nature of the cards, some have multiple "Primary Attacks" (like 2 or 3 attacks) and that too is very misleading.

I'm thinking there should be some SIMPLIFICATION to reduce the "back-and-forth" of the "Battle" round such that each Monster ONLY have one (1) Primary Attack and one (1) Monster Tactic. I'm not 100% sure about this... but ATM this is the direction I will go in...

And then we'll see how it all plays out. The new Scorecards are GREAT! So that's a PLUS with this prototype.

I'm going to sleep on it... That is leave this prototype AS-IS. And see what I get as ideas overnight. I know I should be working on the "Crystal Heroes" (CH) rulebook... But I wanted to "tighten" MK's design. Oh well, we're not there quite just yet!

Sincerely.

Note #1: There needs to be re-focus on "Resources" (Power, Skill and Magic) to determine the VALUES per Monster. And then how the are combined to make HEALTH (or the values used for formulae computing).

Some noteworthy things to mention are as follows:

A Monster built up of all three (3) "Resources" is the HARDEST to defeat. It is possible but HARD.

Secondly I think the ATTACKS should be limited to ONE (1) Per Monster. So if you have FIVE (5) Monsters, you get FIVE (5) Attacks. And then we ADD the Monster Tactics, again ONE (1) Per Monster, giving FIVE (5) Tactics AT MOST.

This is sounding a bit A LOT AGAIN! But that's the whole point of the game is to have interesting Monsters with COOL abilities... Otherwise what will be the point of this "design"?!

Clearly more thought about how to SIMPLIFY the "design" a little to prevent too much "Back-And-Forth" and the ability to neutralize certain attacks with various decks. This is a Deck-Construction Game ... So you can perfect your own Deck off-line (and outside of matches).

Like I said, I won't do anything tonight... I'll just let it "sit there" and review the cards and see what I can do to IMPROVE the "Battle" round with some simplification. Just thinking what can be done.

TBH ATM the game is BORING! Because of the "Back-And-Forth" makes for crappy Take-That sort of mechanic when I was hoping for something MORE "organic". I really wanted something that FEELS "natural" and intuitive.

The current design is FAR FROM THAT! Much too much going on... And even if the cards are COOL LOOKING ... They still don't radiate some kind of amazing aura when you PLAY.

Step #1: Make the "design" look COOL = Done 100%!

Step #2: Make the "game" feel FUN to play = TODO!

Definitely more to work on and think about. Keep you all in the loop as I will focus on this design this next WEEK. I need a break from CH... We've been working on it for 1 Year and I need some time to just relax and focus on a design which is LESS intuitive.

Believe CH is WAY COOL as it looks and PLAYS. But the RULEBOOK needs a TOTAL overhaul and that's what is getting to me ATM.

So let's just relax with MK and see where we can take this "design"!

Fundamentally this is a "Card Game"... And while "Reach" may be a part of the solution, I am not yet 100% convinced. See the thing is if we think that there may be TOO MANY CHOICES this may be a form of "Analysis-Paralysis". So a player doesn't know what he/she should do FIRST given FIVE (5) cards in play. Sure by adding a "Reach" which may LIMIT the interaction between the cards may SEEM TO FIX the problem... It just sort of "masks" it by LIMITING INTERACTION.

And that to me, sounds BAD!

Why would you want to play a game that is designed to limit your choices because the game's designer could figure out a BETTER method of resolve combat/battles???

Honestly, that to me SOUNDS like BAD DESIGN...

I was going to take the "generalized" version of stats and dumb it down also. What I mean is INSTEAD of players CHOOSING the Power Level of their attack, I was only going to offer options for example: 1P, 2P or 3P damage. Which means that AGAIN this is a form of LIMITING INTERACTION by forcing certain cards to interact BETTER with others (by design, obviously) and make it a more CLOSED system which sort of GUIDES a player into making the RIGHT DECISIONS.

Okay... So while it's not as GOOD as an OPEN-SYSTEM, it doesn't sound as BAD as the "Reach" concept (which forcibly limits interaction by design). Yes, it does serve to LIMIT INTERACTION A BIT but it's generally LESS forceful. So while a DAMAGE of 1P can interact with about 80% (12/15) of the card pool, if you go UP to 2P of DAMAGE that drops to about 50% (8/15) making that less useful. Of course, one thing important to note is do you WANT a damage of 1P for ALL the cards or only specific cards. Again a form of limiting the choices available to each card...

Like in our two (2) samples, 1P affects 80% and this could be good or it could be BAD. In theory, 1P is the most BASIC of operands (ie. the VALUE "1"). Most operators do little with this operand:

1. Multiplication (x1) = Same amount

2. Division (/1) = Same amount

3. Exponent (^1) = Same amount

Addition and Subtractions are also relatively low in term of impact. If you think in terms of GAME PLAY, -1 is less dangerous than -3 or -4. Same goes for Addition, +1 has less impact than +3 or +4...

So DAMAGE 1P is like a FILLER amount in almost all cases. It leads to little change... And this can be important in a game where your score is say 6 points in total. Filler operands & operators are KEY to be used in these contexts.

While 80% have a 1P Damage... I think 1P should NEVER be an option. Maybe this seems like too contriving: you can't remove the operand "1". Meaning that the WORST possible VALUE available to players as an OPTION is EQUAL to "1".

And the result of this is that WE DON'T CARE about the "1" operand. It is a permanent fixture on 80% of the cards and nothing can be done about it. I think this is a LOGICAL conclusion. If it's so STUPID that everyone wants to eliminate a player from using the VALUE "1" ... Let us REMOVE that choice and see what's left to players aside from the general need to remove something that causes so little IMPACT, yet is so very essential with decks using the stronger operators which have "0" impact on an equation.

This is sort of like a PART of several thoughts on WHAT I need to REALLY think about and not just implement a DUMB solution considering that what we want is something TIGHT and ELEGANT in terms of a design. We also want to eliminate the "Back-and-Forth" between players for reasons that are DUMB (like trying to eliminate all of the "1" OPERANDS)...

I'll post up another comment when I have more thoughts to share.

Right now... If you have any thoughts, feedback, ideas you feel like sharing, don't be hesitant... Feel free to express yourself!

I am going to go with some "over simplification". Namely Combat Round will know be referred to the "Knock-Out" Round. I will REMOVE all "Primary Attacks" and "Monster Tactics". Admittedly this sounds a bit "harsh" and in a way it IS. But from another perspective, it keeps things SIMPLE & QUICK.

The BOSS Round is played after the "Knock-Out" Round and here is where I am AT!

Using your Mana Pool, you ENABLE options on your Monsters which are related to the HEALTH of each Monster. Much like before "2P" means the that an OPERAND can have the VALUE "2" by spending one (1) Power Unit. The MAXIMUM is six (6) so this is where variety in your Deck goes a long way.

Again this focuses on YOUR cards and not the opponent. I like this A LOT! See the major problem with across the table cards is that YOU DON'T SEE THEM. Well you do but not very well. So if you FOCUS on only YOUR cards and worry about the opponent's cards ONLY during the "Knock-Out" Rounds... I think this may be more elegant.

At the very END (last round) the Formulation Round occurs and by using the remaining cards in Play and your Mana pools, you each configure your equations.

I will STOP HERE ATM! But my thought process is not yet over... Tonight I will playtest this version and see how it goes (as well as the variable REACH vs. the pre-defined REACH)...

Note #1: With variable REACH the game is just "problematic" AT-BEST. Why? Well players spend more time "knocking-out" their opponent's cards leaving you with one (1) card each + the BOSS. Again in-spirit with this version, just an underwhelming performance TBH.

Next TRY: pre-defined REACH. And for this I will go back to an EARLIER prototype that had the REACH figured out!

Note #2: After some "thought" .. You don't NEED "pre-defined" REACH... It simply boils down to IDENTICAL cards in PAIRS. Meaning without a REACH on ANY of the cards, the only way of "knocking-out" cards is just by playing your own version (same card). So IF the opponent played a "Masked Shaman" ... All you need to do is play the SAME card and "knock-it-out"!

I came to this realization when examining the area of play from my last playtest. It immediately came to me that REACH (if preset) would not be needed. And for the moment, this is a GOOD thing. Less to worry about, the better. Right now BIG POINTS for "oversimplification"... It's on it's way! Like I said in the OP: Needs more TLC!

I think MAYBE(?!) I could have "Monster Tactics" but DIFFERENT than what I have currently. Currently the Tactics are focusing on DAMAGING opposing Monsters. I would have to CHANGE this to become more like "Boons" or "Curses"... Still need more thoughts on this.

WHY???

Well TBH I think that re-introducing such an element ADDS to the OVERALL "complexity" of the design of each card. And then as you remember there is the whole "Analysis-Paralysis" problem. I think I will need to use a "case-by-case" approach to figuring out WHICH cards have a Tactic and those that do not.

Again needing to focus on SIMPLE design. And not BLOATING the design with too much more.

I made for a "Default" Value for each card. So like "2" is a FREE "Value" that comes automatically when you PLAY this card. Obviously you don't want to play that card without any additional Resource Points (because it may be too easy to Knock-Out -- 0 Resources used) by simply putting the same card into play...

But this means that AT LEAST there are six (6) Values (Operands) that are pre-defined...

I'm going to have to ponder more about the "Knock-Out" Round and the layout of the cards.

1. If the DEFAULT is "2" and both player choose "1" as their additional Resource, that means BOTH cards are knocked-out (because they are IDENTICAL).

2. But if one chooses "1" and the other chooses "3" ... BOTH card remain IN-PLAY (because they are DIFFERENT).

3. The last scenario is if one choose "1" and the other chooses "1" & "3"... This would mean the first player would have his card knocked-out (because the second one SUPERSEDES the first)!

We'll see how ADDING the Monster Tactics "complicates" the game ... Is it only a little more complex or is it just TOO MUCH?!?! TBD.

Note #1: Safe to say that the "Knock-Out" Round is really what it IS about. You're spending Resources to TRY to "Knock-Out" one of the opponent cards. It seems a bit "complicated" but in truth it is very simple. There are only three (3) scenarios (as mentioned above) and how SAFE a card is depends how INVESTED the player is in keeping it IN-PLAY.

Note #2: The other thing is that Tactics are either Passive or Instant. Passive means that they go into effect as soon as the card is REVEALED. Instant means that you can play it at ANY TIME even in response to an opposing action (when relevant).

Note #3: I'm a bit on the fence about the "DEFAULT" values. I added them because it was part of my thought process not that it was something that I had validated FIRST. I guess it's going to take me TOMORROW to work some more on yet another SET of prototype cards. This is version 14.2 now ... Yeah there has been a lot of DESIGNING and "scrapping" too! Major re-designs from the initial concept to what it is TODAY.

You know what they say about "Good Intentions"... Anyhow I have begun editing TODAY (Monday), a day late in my schedule... But I am working on "Monster Keep" (MK) until the end of this month (January 31, 2022). I've got my schedule a bit organized and have some open time to "focus" this design into something very innovative.

I'm about 60% done in terms of designing the NEXT prototype. I'm not sure HOW it will fare, I'm a bit fidgety about the design. The Monster Tactics are probably OKAY... It's the "Knock-Out" Round that concerns me the most ATM.

See it's clear that IF I put a DEFAULT, that's all well and dandy. Makes for an additional value if the card DOESN'T get "knocked-out". But that's kind of the problem ATM: If you see your opponent's previous "row", you can definitely determine HOW and IF you can knock-out two (2) cards. However you may only choose to knock-out only one (1) card because you are pursuing your own strategy further and NOT wasting a card slot for a knock-out.

Anyways for the moment, I'm not going to ask for any ideas or thoughts... Not unless you really need to voice your opinion or have something brilliant I should be ready to learn from. I'm always OPEN to suggestions, so if you have feedback, questions or simply a comment, feel free to post away. But I really need to TRY this NEW prototype and SEE HOW it performs.

Maybe I'll find some answer in this design that makes it more apparent how I need to "tweak" the design ... To improve it.

Note #1: Well I got through all the EDITING today. Which was good ... But I am behind schedule just a bit. I don't think I want to start cutting the cards tonight... We'll see... Maybe in an hour or so I may start!

I'm really TRYING to figure out a more "accurate" MATCHING system. I know it's all based on STATS but ... At the same time, you're spending your valuable Resources to "knock-out" cards.

This ASPECT is still "unclean" ... It's a bit muddied and too easily focused upon by players forcing "knock-outs" (maybe 1 or 2 is okay).

I have another IDEA: "Locked".

A card becomes "Locked" when all it's Resources are consumed. So a "3 Power" card which has a DEFAULT "2", if the player spend 2 more Resource points ... that card becomes "Locked".

This concept comes on the "eve" of me deciding that Multiplications and Division deserve more "Resources" to make it harder to "match" during the "Knock-Out" Round. As you can see "more thinking" in perfecting this design.

So the area on the cards reserved for REACH will now become one of two things:

1. Tourney Points.

Used in Tournaments to increase the level of difficulty of the game. This will allow players to be creative with their Deck-Construction skills and craft decks that will be able to take on difficult to almost impossible decks to win with.

2. Deck-Construction Limits.

Similar but going in the opposite direction. These limits would impose a Deck maximum which is allowable in the event of tournaments or aggressive matches where there is importance in HOW you construct your deck. Again could be used for tournaments and such.

Between these two (2) options, I am leaning on Option #1, Tourney Points. Why? Well it's easier to check instead of scanning through an entire Deck (of 15 cards) like in Option #2... And it's easy to comprehend as well.

How will it work, you ask??? Here are some of the simple rules that I have come up with:

A> Winning the Math Equation grants you +5 Tourney Points.

B> Using various cards in combinations grants you additional Tourney Points as well. Values go from 1 to 3 and you add them up to see who wins.

Something along those lines...

Note #1: As of now, the latest prototype features Option #1: Tourney Points. I will play as before for one playtest and then depending on how well it goes, I might play a second game with the Tourney Points to see how this fares as well... We'll have to wait and see how the game plays.

Note #2: One of the issues with the current design is that a player may ONLY include Addition ("+") operators and ... Well that is a bit boring. Or much too easy with sufficient Mana. So my idea was to give the other operators more VALUE (Tourney Points). It may force a player to play a Multiplier instead of an Addition to try to ensure he/she wins the match-up.

But yeah, this is definitely something to be concerned about.

Who would use Division if all I need is to Add values ONLY! Even with the Operands not being available, it's still easier to pump out a "Junior" Deck with only Additions. And while this is OKAY to LEARN the game... I want the masters to use all of the Operators in their Decks.

So that's another aspect to test in my 2nd+ playtests.

Note #3: I definitely think that there will be some "fine-tuning" with regards to the "Tourney Points". Not sure 100% but it's seeming near impossible to WIN a game without being the player who WINS the "Formulation" Round (Equation). I will keep this in mind as I get around to the other playtests (given the amount of time to TEST all the NEW features and functionality).

But focusing on this Design for the last couple of weeks ... Has definitely IMPROVED the game 10x... It's really getting to the level where it is a SOLID filler-type game (with 15 minute games, you can play best out of 3) is something FUN to play.

The Expert deck has 21 Points. Two (2) Skilled decks have 28 Points. One Novice deck has 30 Points (with some tweaking). The Novice deck was a 32 Points and I decided that's TOO HIGH... So with the lowered limit to 30 Points, I made a bit of a FIX to get the 30 Points instead of 32.

I'll review again ... But it seems LOGICAL that this should be the method of designing the Decks rather than rely on Tourney Points which are much too fidgety IMHO!

Tourney Points are much too HARD to "balance". Plus if you have MORE cards that are created in the Future... Tourney Points become problematic because of things like CHEATING the system with ONLY 3 Point Subtraction cards ("-")... 3 x 6 = 18 points... That's the MAXIMUM amount of Tourney Points PLUS 5 Bonus points for the Point Total... 18 - 5 = 13 Points across 6 cards is also possible... But you would need 14 Points to beat the Subtraction Deck(!)

I'm definitely leaning toward the Construction Deck Points at 30 Points and players can work with TOUGHER decks if they want to: 21 vs 28 vs 30.

Note #1: I will explore this further; since it is rather easy to figure out if the Deck Limit is respected and my current EXPERT deck that I am playtesting is only 21 Points out of 30!

Winning is done by being CLOSEST to the Target Point Total... That's it.

Note #2: The other point is that having a Deck-Construction Limit sort of forces players to mix-and-match the "operators" and that is EXACTLY what I was looking for. What I was trying to prevent is DUMB Deck-Construction: like ALL "+"s or ALL "-"s, etc.

I think with the Build Points (BPs) that will solve the issue and force players to think OUTSIDE the box. Mix things up a bit to get the BEST most flexible Deck of 15 cards out-there.

And one of the issues is controlling the "Population" Rounds. Selecting which cards you want to PLAY is one thing. But then figuring out what cards you want to counter with in addition to "spending" Mana to boost the STATS of your cards is a bit "confusing" at the moment.

Is "Population" one Round and then Mana attribution another Round(?!)

Do you get to see what the opponent has a far as cards are concerned ... And then the next step is to figure out how to give Mana to the cards... Not sure. But selecting the cards to play is definitely ONE PROESS. Figuring HOW MUCH "Mana" is definitely ANOTHER STEP...

So #1 Populate and then #2 Give Mana... Seems like this is the way to go. And of course, Passive abilities take effect in Round #1 (during Population) and Instants can be played in BOTH of those Rounds (I think?!)

Trying to keep the process as LEAN and SIMPLE as possible.

The confusion lies between "selecting cards/Monsters" AND then "giving them Mana". You don't want this to happen simultaneously ... because it will lead to AP (Analysis-Paralysis). Why? Because you are asking the Players to do TOO MUCH on one turn:

1. Select 3 Monsters from 5 in your hand and play them hidden.

2. At the same time, for each one of them decide how much Mana you want them to use.

That clearly seems like a recipe for disaster... Again, because you are asking too much from the Players and all at the SAME time.

I'm going to work with the STRATEGY and see what is best... And just feel my way through this FIRST (Early) test of the new prototype. For sure this is a 1st attempt ... So I'm not basing all my criticism on the first try... I'm just observing what works naturally and better than the previous prototype.

I will finish off this first game and report back my final conclusions next!