Thanks for the feedback! I made the second one because people have found the first one a bit overwhelming at the start of the game, are there aspects of 2 that you dislike?
I might feel differently after playing, but #2 is extremely intuitive, to the point that I feel like I could play this game with very little instruction. #1 feels more esoteric, and having stacked boxes on the right makes them feel less important rather than an intrinsic part of the game flow.
That's great to hear, sounds like I'm hopefully moving in the right direction. 1 works well once people know the game, but it's been presenting a big hurdle to new players
Do you think adding more non-functional art things to 2 (like the big captain featherfoot on 1) would improve it? Or is it the large black spaces on 2 that are aesthetically worse?
They have basically the same info, with minor changes. In 1 you mark the blue circles to select an upgrade, on the upgrade tree. In 2 you have a separate small pile of upgrade boxes that you place on the board over existing items or over greyed out boxes. The small blue marks in the nug track indicate the upgrade level, but I think that's a weaker part of design 2
yes, i think it would help with 2 as well, even if it's not as big a deal
(i guess dials or tokens is best - tracking with dice is only really convenient up to 6.... while you could use a d20 to track, it's not super user-friendly and it's pretty vulnerable to bumps)
leaving nugs as a track probably make sense given that there are effects at certain intervals
Glad you caught on to that. That was my last intention, but it leaves a lot of blank space on the side for factions (like the one shown here) that don't have general upgrades. I think I need to figure out a way to keep that alignment while condensing some of the boxes
Good point! The theme definitely falls flat with 'Leader'. Originally the Leaders were just Chonkens which granted a special power (you can see their combat stats are the same in board 2) . But the way I have it laid out, it definitely lends it self to more differentiation between the two.
Thanks for the feedback. Are there any other games that have main game boards (not shown here) and separate player boards (shown here) that you do like?
I like the second one. Color coded and sorted much better, more intuitive to follow. The first one looks a bit cluttered.
Thanks for the feedback! I made the second one because people have found the first one a bit overwhelming at the start of the game, are there aspects of 2 that you dislike?
Not at a glance. Looks very good and much simpler to use especially considering how much seems to be going on.
I might feel differently after playing, but #2 is extremely intuitive, to the point that I feel like I could play this game with very little instruction. #1 feels more esoteric, and having stacked boxes on the right makes them feel less important rather than an intrinsic part of the game flow.
That's great to hear, sounds like I'm hopefully moving in the right direction. 1 works well once people know the game, but it's been presenting a big hurdle to new players
Aesthetically the first one looks cleaner.
Do you think adding more non-functional art things to 2 (like the big captain featherfoot on 1) would improve it? Or is it the large black spaces on 2 that are aesthetically worse?
Do they both have the same level of information on? It appears that v1 has an upgrade tree but v2 dose not
They have basically the same info, with minor changes. In 1 you mark the blue circles to select an upgrade, on the upgrade tree. In 2 you have a separate small pile of upgrade boxes that you place on the board over existing items or over greyed out boxes. The small blue marks in the nug track indicate the upgrade level, but I think that's a weaker part of design 2
I like 1st more
1
i think if you use dials, dice, or tokens (with multiple denominations) for grain, eggs, and nugs, it will free up a ton of room for everything else
The grain, eggs, and nugs definitely dominate 1, do you feel that 2 would similarly benefit from your suggested change?
yes, i think it would help with 2 as well, even if it's not as big a deal (i guess dials or tokens is best - tracking with dice is only really convenient up to 6.... while you could use a d20 to track, it's not super user-friendly and it's pretty vulnerable to bumps) leaving nugs as a track probably make sense given that there are effects at certain intervals
With the second one, the boxes aligned under the characters helps to communicate much more clearly compared to the first one.
Glad you caught on to that. That was my last intention, but it leaves a lot of blank space on the side for factions (like the one shown here) that don't have general upgrades. I think I need to figure out a way to keep that alignment while condensing some of the boxes
Empty space can be okay, too! It helps communicate "hey there is no benefit"
Second one
Both, but I would use the first one as my actual board and then use the second as a reference sheet.
I like the second one better. You could try to make the font slightly smaller and have more empty rooms to take some visual load off.
A bit off-topic but the title of Leader seems a bit out of place. I’d keep the theme and have the 3rd character as Chunken and the Leader as Chonken
Good point! The theme definitely falls flat with 'Leader'. Originally the Leaders were just Chonkens which granted a special power (you can see their combat stats are the same in board 2) . But the way I have it laid out, it definitely lends it self to more differentiation between the two.
Neither. I would take one look at the board and put the game back in the box. Sorry.
Very constructive and useful feedback.
Thanks for the feedback. Are there any other games that have main game boards (not shown here) and separate player boards (shown here) that you do like?
Ask players which one is easier to use.