u/Psych0191

Hello everyone,

I am releasing an open playtest tomorrow and am wondering how to maximize the player count and feedback.

I made an itch page and customized it a bit to make it more attractive, I (my wife actually) made the trailer in order for it to appear a bit more attractive and descriptive of the game, I plan on posting on some regular game dev subs as well as game genre sub (those people are amazing and always want to help) and X (although O dont really have a following there).

I have a discord server ready in order to recieve some feedback. I was thinking of making a google form for feedback, but I am looking for open feedback and there is a lot of moving parts (dont know how to create google form detailed enough without it being intimidating).

I also tested a lot of other devs games and provided them with as detailed feedback as I could and am hoping that some of them will maybe play my game and give me some feedback as well.

Do you have any other ideas of what I could do in order to try and increase the player count and feedback a bit more?

This isnt really any form of marketing campaign, I am geniunely looking into getting as much feedback as possible in order to improve my game as much as I can.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,

2 days ago I posted here offering to playtest other games for free, with an option for other devs to playtest my game. First of all, I didnt expect such a massive response, I got a ton of games to playtest, and have been doing so for past two days.

And I have to say it was a lot of fun. There are still games that I am yet to playtest, which I am excited about!

But I have learned one valuable thing here, playtesting makes you look at games from third perspective compared to the ones we know as players and devs.

You arent just playing the game and seeing if you like it or not, you are actively looking for whats fun and what isnt, what works, what doesnt work, if tutorial is good or bad, if pacing could be better, and so on.

And while looking for those things, I thought of my game and started thinking about it in similar ways. I realized that there is a bunch of small things I should tweak in order to make it better. And all of that while helping others.

Honestly, I an glad that so many people contacted me to playtest their games and gave me a chance at looking at some very interesting and promising projects.

And I advise you all to give it a shot, it will help you and it will help other devs!

Hello everyone,

If you are making a tycoon game I would like to test it for you! Only condition is that it is playable on steam or as an itch web build.

You can tell me if there is anything you want me to test exactly or what kind of feedback you are looking for.

It is completely free! I would love if you can playtest my game in a week or so when its out, but there is no need for it if you dont feel like it.

Show me what you got!

Hello everyone,

As the tittle says, I want to playtest your games. No matter how done it is, if it is just a crude prototype or almost finished product.

The game has to be playable either on steam or web build on itch. You have to tell me what do you want me to focus on, is there something exact I am looking for or just some generic playthrough.

You can send me the link or key to the test in DMs or post it here.

I will do this completely free, and if you want you can test my game in a week or so when its released in return, but you have no obligation.

Hello everyone,

I have finished the current version of the game and it is ready to be playtested by other people.

It is a somewhat complex tycoon/management game. As such, it isnt like players can mash some buttons and figure out the basic controlls.

Creating a tutorial now doesnt seem like practical thing, especially since there is a lot of features still lacking, and some may be changed in future versions.

My idea was to write a wiki, it would take some time, like 7-10 days, but it would be much easier than implementing full blown tutorial.

But I was thinking, since it is a tycoon game, it is kinda aimed at people whos hobby is figuring out systems and learning how they work in order to exploit them. So I am thinking if maybe I should release the game now without the wiki?

Or should I release the wikiless version now, and when I make it I should release it again?

Is there anything to be gained or loss by doing this two step release of playtest version?

I would love to hear your opinion on it!

Hello everyone,

I am trying to design a strategy game that combines economic and military aspects. Yeah, I kniw, when I say it like this it doesnt sound like anything new or refreshing. I dont wont to bother you with lots of unimportant details for now, but lets just say that focus will be much more on the economy side of things. And with thaz in mind I am looking for some fast and easy way of military conflict resolutions that are still fun.

So here is the idea:

Anyway, there will be a map with points representing location. Players will have generals that are represented by pieces on the map and cards.

Each general card will have tree zones, left flank, center and right flank. Cubes representing units will be placed in those zones, however player whishes.

Battle would happen when two generals find themself in same location. Player initiating battle would be the attacker and the other one would be the defender.

Battle will consist of phases. Each phase attacker rolls dices equal to the number of zones they have filled. After that they will arrange dices however they whish in zones. After that defender will do the same thing.

After both players assigned their dice to the zone, each zone will be compared. Dice reulsts would be increased by the number of unit player has in that zone. So if I rolled 5 and have 3 units, my result would be 8. In the end the player with higher result would win in that zone in that phase, and losing player would have to remove one unit.

If one player lacks units in one zone, opposing player also uses the units in adjacent zone to adjust the die roll result, but units from one zone can only be used in one adjacent zone in same phase.

Battle would be over if one player lost all units, pr decides to back away from combat. In that case, other player rolls a die for every zone where they have units, and if adjusted result is 6 or higher, losing player would remove 1 unit.

Now, why I think this approach would work:

1. Combat is fast: roll dice, arrange them, compare, rinse and repeat. There is no enormous sheets to look up, or 10s of cards that player has to look at and think what they should play.

2. Strategic elements: unlike games like Risk, here you actually have to deploy some light strategy by balancing your zones and calculating where to put each die

3. Unpredictable: usage of dice ensures that the outcome isnt guaranteed by sheer numbers, but again those numbers give you more security.

4. No useless battles and lost causes: if your opponent has much stronger army, you can stillescape. If you outnumber your opponent and they decide to leave, you stell get to hit them.

So, before I start playtesting this, I would like to hear your opinion on it. Do you think it is maybe too much luck based? What is your general opinion on it?

Hello everyone,

I am trying to design a strategy game that combines economic and military aspects. Yeah, I kniw, when I say it like this it doesnt sound like anything new or refreshing. I dont wont to bother you with lots of unimportant details for now, but lets just say that focus will be much more on the economy side of things. And with thaz in mind I am looking for some fast and easy way of military conflict resolutions that are still fun.

So here is the idea:

Anyway, there will be a map with points representing location. Players will have generals that are represented by pieces on the map and cards.

Each general card will have tree zones, left flank, center and right flank. Cubes representing units will be placed in those zones, however player whishes.

Battle would happen when two generals find themself in same location. Player initiating battle would be the attacker and the other one would be the defender.

Battle will consist of phases. Each phase attacker rolls dices equal to the number of zones they have filled. After that they will arrange dices however they whish in zones. After that defender will do the same thing.

After both players assigned their dice to the zone, each zone will be compared. Dice reulsts would be increased by the number of unit player has in that zone. So if I rolled 5 and have 3 units, my result would be 8. In the end the player with higher result would win in that zone in that phase, and losing player would have to remove one unit.

If one player lacks units in one zone, opposing player also uses the units in adjacent zone to adjust the die roll result, but units from one zone can only be used in one adjacent zone in same phase.

Battle would be over if one player lost all units, pr decides to back away from combat. In that case, other player rolls a die for every zone where they have units, and if adjusted result is 6 or higher, losing player would remove 1 unit.

Now, why I think this approach would work:

1. Combat is fast: roll dice, arrange them, compare, rinse and repeat. There is no enormous sheets to look up, or 10s of cards that player has to look at and think what they should play.

2. Strategic elements: unlike games like Risk, here you actually have to deploy some light strategy by balancing your zones and calculating where to put each die

3. Unpredictable: usage of dice ensures that the outcome isnt guaranteed by sheer numbers, but again those numbers give you more security.

4. No useless battles and lost causes: if your opponent has much stronger army, you can stillescape. If you outnumber your opponent and they decide to leave, you stell get to hit them.

So, before I start playtesting this, I would like to hear your opinion on it. Do you think it is maybe too much luck based? What is your general opinion on it?

Hello everyone,

I am developing a tycoon/management game about game design/game development. I take my inspiration from well known games like Game Dev Story, Game Dev Tycoon, Mad Games Tycoon,… but I am trying to do some things differently.

I was thinking of how I could implement bugs in the game development part, and I want to change it up a bit fron formula used in those games. All those games have almost exactly the same approach: when people eork on the game they generate bugs, which are then removed at the end od the development by letting them work on a game, and if they are not removed, they bring down your games rating and affect sales. Relatively simple and elegant but not really realistic approach.

My dev process: games consists of feats, each feat can have 1 or multiple mechanics included, mechanics create tasks and your employees work on taska to accumulate score, which is then compared to other games to determine the rating of each task and rating od the game is aggregated fron task ratings.

My idea for bugs: based on employees stats and energy and morale, when they work on a task they will have a chance to generate a bug for that task. Then, again based on their skills and other factors, it could be a minor or a major bug.

Minor bugs could be removed by simply working on those tasks, or by dedicating employees time to work on those bugs. If left in the game they would drag down the rating of a task and thus rating of the game. Similar thing to the usual approach.

Major bugs however would be a whole different thing. They would require didacted time to work on them, and when working on them employee would have a chance to remove it based on their skill. But if they fail there would be a possibility of generating new minor bugs and maybe even new major bugs. And there isnt a 100% chance of removing the major bug. And a task with 1 or more major bugs would be rated 0 by default. So if players arent able to resolve them, they would need to cut it out of the game. Now, they could increase chances of success by having more employees work on it.

I thought of this as an interesting mechanic since it forces the player to adapt, either put things on hold untill its resolved, however long it takes, or cut the thing out completely from the game. This would be a realistic thing and would create a dynamic situation for players.

But I can also see it being a frustrating thing, as every realism could be, so I would like to hear your opinion on it.

Edit: Another question about possible frustrating and realistic feature: what if not all bugs are revealed when they are created, but player has to conduct tests in order to reveal them, with a possibility of not all bugs being revealed? So there would be a possibility of player shipoing a game without realizing that there are some bugs.

Hello everyone,

I am developing a tycoon/management game about game design/game development. I take my inspiration from well known games like Game Dev Story, Game Dev Tycoon, Mad Games Tycoon,… but I am trying to do some things differently.

I was thinking of how I could implement bugs in the game development part, and I want to change it up a bit fron formula used in those games. All those games have almost exactly the same approach: when people eork on the game they generate bugs, which are then removed at the end od the development by letting them work on a game, and if they are not removed, they bring down your games rating and affect sales. Relatively simple and elegant but not really realistic approach.

My dev process: games consists of feats, each feat can have 1 or multiple mechanics included, mechanics create tasks and your employees work on taska to accumulate score, which is then compared to other games to determine the rating of each task and rating od the game is aggregated fron task ratings.

My idea for bugs: based on employees stats and energy and morale, when they work on a task they will have a chance to generate a bug for that task. Then, again based on their skills and other factors, it could be a minor or a major bug.

Minor bugs could be removed by simply working on those tasks, or by dedicating employees time to work on those bugs. If left in the game they would drag down the rating of a task and thus rating of the game. Similar thing to the usual approach.

Major bugs however would be a whole different thing. They would require didacted time to work on them, and when working on them employee would have a chance to remove it based on their skill. But if they fail there would be a possibility of generating new minor bugs and maybe even new major bugs. And there isnt a 100% chance of removing the major bug. And a task with 1 or more major bugs would be rated 0 by default. So if players arent able to resolve them, they would need to cut it out of the game. Now, they could increase chances of success by having more employees work on it.

I thought of this as an interesting mechanic since it forces the player to adapt, either put things on hold untill its resolved, however long it takes, or cut the thing out completely from the game. This would be a realistic thing and would create a dynamic situation for players.

But I can also see it being a frustrating thing, as every realism could be, so I would like to hear your opinion on it.

Edit: Another question about possible frustrating and realistic feature: what if not all bugs are revealed when they are created, but player has to conduct tests in order to reveal them, with a possibility of not all bugs being revealed? So there would be a possibility of player shipoing a game without realizing that there are some bugs.

Hello everyone,

I am developing a tycoon/management game about game design/game development. In this game you run a studio, designing games and developing them, analyzing market and exploiting openings.

Anyway, I have managed to gamify game design somewhat well by making games be made by combining features, as you work on tasks from features you unlock design points which you then use to unlock new mechanics in those features. Each machanics has their own characteristics and their values, things like complexity, immersion, replayability,…. So it really matters what you choose, since market consists of different target audiences that rank games based on their prefferences for those characteristics, determining your sales.

But now I am faced with next challenge. At first my idea was to make player juggle with teams schedules for tasks, determining their priority and managing employees morale and energy. Other than that players would just pass the time and employees would work on their tasks contributing to their scores. But now that I am testing it, it feels like something is lacking. So I realized that I want to gamify development as well.

I had some ideas about how I could gamify the game development process so I would like to hear your opinion on them:

1. events - from time to time an event would fire saying for example “employee X has an idea of haw task Y could be done much more efficiently” and then you would have an option to either make that employees contribution to that task doubles while his contribution to other tasks halfes for a certain period of time, or you could tell him to ignore that idea. So an event based system that changes employees continutions a bit forcing player to not just choose an option but also to adapt task priorities and schedules to make the most out of it.

2. contribution minigames - so from time to time players would be given a minigame which would increase employees contribution if solved properly. Like maybe giving some small snippets of code and making players arrange them properly. If solved correctly, all employees would gain a boist to their contributions for a certain period of time, and if not, nothing would happen.

3. characteristic balancing - from time to time, players would gain an option to rebelance some characteristics of some mechanic. So if a mechanic gives 1 immersion and 1 replayability, players would get an option to rebelance them a little in order to influence the games final characteristics even more. So in this example it would be like sacrificig immersion in order to make it more replayable.

4. feature based minigames - so for every feature I could make a specific minigame for players that need to be solved. For example for vehicle movement, I could make a minigame that allows you to ride a car through a corner, and then you could move sliders to eliminate oversteer/understeer and stuff like that, and if you do it properly, you would instantly get a massive contribution for your game. This is a bit tough since not only will I have to make a minigame for every feature, but it would also kinda kill modability so I am not a real fan of this.

So I would like to hear your opinion on these ideas and would also like to hear if you have some other ideas of how I could gamify game development part of my game.

Hello everyone,

I am developing a tycoon/management game about game design/game development. In this game you run a studio, designing games and developing them, analyzing market and exploiting openings.

Anyway, I have managed to gamify game design somewhat well by making games be made by combining features, as you work on tasks from features you unlock design points which you then use to unlock new mechanics in those features. Each machanics has their own characteristics and their values, things like complexity, immersion, replayability,…. So it really matters what you choose, since market consists of different target audiences that rank games based on their prefferences for those characteristics, determining your sales.

But now I am faced with next challenge. At first my idea was to make player juggle with teams schedules for tasks, determining their priority and managing employees morale and energy. Other than that players would just pass the time and employees would work on their tasks contributing to their scores. But now that I am testing it, it feels like something is lacking. So I realized that I want to gamify development as well.

I had some ideas about how I could gamify the game development process so I would like to hear your opinion on them:

1. events - from time to time an event would fire saying for example “employee X has an idea of haw task Y could be done much more efficiently” and then you would have an option to either make that employees contribution to that task doubles while his contribution to other tasks halfes for a certain period of time, or you could tell him to ignore that idea. So an event based system that changes employees continutions a bit forcing player to not just choose an option but also to adapt task priorities and schedules to make the most out of it.

2. contribution minigames - so from time to time players would be given a minigame which would increase employees contribution if solved properly. Like maybe giving some small snippets of code and making players arrange them properly. If solved correctly, all employees would gain a boist to their contributions for a certain period of time, and if not, nothing would happen.

3. characteristic balancing - from time to time, players would gain an option to rebelance some characteristics of some mechanic. So if a mechanic gives 1 immersion and 1 replayability, players would get an option to rebelance them a little in order to influence the games final characteristics even more. So in this example it would be like sacrificig immersion in order to make it more replayable.

4. feature based minigames - so for every feature I could make a specific minigame for players that need to be solved. For example for vehicle movement, I could make a minigame that allows you to ride a car through a corner, and then you could move sliders to eliminate oversteer/understeer and stuff like that, and if you do it properly, you would instantly get a massive contribution for your game. This is a bit tough since not only will I have to make a minigame for every feature, but it would also kinda kill modability so I am not a real fan of this.

So I would like to hear your opinion on these ideas and would also like to hear if you have some other ideas of how I could gamify game development part of my game.

Hello everyone,

I am developing a tycoon/management game about game design/game development. In this game you run a studio, designing games and developing them, analyzing market and exploiting openings.

Anyway, I have managed to gamify game design somewhat well by making games be made by combining features, as you work on tasks from features you unlock design points which you then use to unlock new mechanics in those features. Each machanics has their own characteristics and their values, things like complexity, immersion, replayability,…. So it really matters what you choose, since market consists of different target audiences that rank games based on their prefferences for those characteristics, determining your sales.

But now I am faced with next challenge. At first my idea was to make player juggle with teams schedules for tasks, determining their priority and managing employees morale and energy. Other than that players would just pass the time and employees would work on their tasks contributing to their scores. But now that I am testing it, it feels like something is lacking. So I realized that I want to gamify development as well.

I had some ideas about how I could gamify the game development process so I would like to hear your opinion on them:

1. events - from time to time an event would fire saying for example “employee X has an idea of haw task Y could be done much more efficiently” and then you would have an option to either make that employees contribution to that task doubles while his contribution to other tasks halfes for a certain period of time, or you could tell him to ignore that idea. So an event based system that changes employees continutions a bit forcing player to not just choose an option but also to adapt task priorities and schedules to make the most out of it.

2. contribution minigames - so from time to time players would be given a minigame which would increase employees contribution if solved properly. Like maybe giving some small snippets of code and making players arrange them properly. If solved correctly, all employees would gain a boist to their contributions for a certain period of time, and if not, nothing would happen.

3. characteristic balancing - from time to time, players would gain an option to rebelance some characteristics of some mechanic. So if a mechanic gives 1 immersion and 1 replayability, players would get an option to rebelance them a little in order to influence the games final characteristics even more. So in this example it would be like sacrificig immersion in order to make it more replayable.

4. feature based minigames - so for every feature I could make a specific minigame for players that need to be solved. For example for vehicle movement, I could make a minigame that allows you to ride a car through a corner, and then you could move sliders to eliminate oversteer/understeer and stuff like that, and if you do it properly, you would instantly get a massive contribution for your game. This is a bit tough since not only will I have to make a minigame for every feature, but it would also kinda kill modability so I am not a real fan of this.

So I would like to hear your opinion on these ideas and would also like to hear if you have some other ideas of how I could gamify game development part of my game.

Hello everyone,

Do you know any game, or have any experience with games having modular/adjustable complexity?

I have an idea for a strategy game set in renaissance italy, where each player controls one city (Florence, Milan, Venice and Rome). Main idea and systems are (relatively)simple:

- production system: player spends money placing buildings in their capital and owned locations. Those buildings produce either food, gold or influence (three types: cultural/political/diplomatic).

- resource management: food is needed to upkeep buildings and military influence, gold is needed to build buildings and upkeep diplomatic influence.

- contest and conquer location: use influence to conquer locations. Locations where you have the most influence compared to other players are controled by you.

- different types of influence are earned through buildings, but are placed differently compared to each other.

And in the end winner is determined by number of locations they control and their influence.

All in all relatively simple strategy game. But I also had ideas for more in depth systems like:

1. complex production chain and multiple resources system: like you make what in one place, make it into flour in another and then finally bread in third building, resulting in much higher food count compared to simple dairy farm. Or perhaps a building materials like iron and wood being produced in different places. So every location would be kinda unique and losing it to other player would hurt more.

2. artists and works of art system: artists represented by cards that players bid for and depending on the artists and your buildings you could increase your cultural influence substantially. Basically adding another front for players to battle on.

3. trade system: would go hand in hand with production system, where players would be able to trade resources with one another or move them to teading posts in order to earn extra gold.

4. banking system: investing gold in different locations and either collecting steady income each turn or risking leaving it to compound and maybe fall into another players hands.

5. battle and siege system: some simple probably card based system that would let players fight battles with their armies.

6. leader system: a card that gives you certain buffs and debuffs that changes every turn forcing you to adapt to new circumstances

7. action buildings system: instead of buildings providing additional types of resources, they could provide you with certain actions, like conevrting your opponents influence to yours or erasing them, or steal their resources or something like that, all based on what you build.

And so on.

Now trying to include all of this would probably result in 6-12 hours monstrosity, which certainly nobody would ever play. But I was thinking, would it at all be an interesting idea to make the base game with modular systems. Like you have your base game which is somewhat simple, and then you could mix and match modules in order to gain the experience you want, like maybe you want a relaxed short game, or the deep economic simulation, or maybe a more typicall wargame, or somewhat abstracted euro game,…

Now do you think it would be an interesting idea to try and make a modular system where players could mix and match systems in order to create experience tailored to their needs?

Pozdrav ljudi, moze li mi neko preporuciti neku seriju?

Ne znamo vise ja i zena sta da gledamo. Volimo trilere, loliticke trilere pogotovo, drame, misterije, sta god. Ne mogu sad pisati sve sto smo gledali i pocinjali da gledamo. Strane serije idealno.

Ne znam sta bi mogao navesti kako bih vam pomogao lri pomaganju meni.

Edit: ne mogu ni stici odgovoriti na sve, hvala puno ljudi!!!

Shaddoll Puppeteer

[Spellcaster/Flip/Effect]

DARK | 4 | ATK/1800 DEF/1200

FLIP: You can target “Shaddoll” cards in your GY and/or banishment, up to the number of cards your opponent controls; shuffle them into the Deck.

During the Main Phase (Quick Effect): You can send 1 “Shaddoll” card from your Deck to the GY; Special Summon this card from your hand, also for the rest of this turn after this effect resolves, you cannot Special Summon monsters, except “Shaddoll” monsters, also you cannot Special Summon “El Shaddoll Winda” for the rest of this turn.

You can only use thus effect of “Shaddoll Puppeteer” once per turn. You can only use one of the following effects of “Shaddoll Puppeteer” per turn:

(1)When your opponent activates a monster effect (Quick Effect): You can Fusion Summon 1 “Shaddoll” Fusion Monster from your Extra Deck, using this card you control and cards your opponent controls as material.

(2)If this card is sent to the GY by a card effect: You can target 1 card your opponent controls; shuffle it into the Deck.

I love Shaddolls and this card would enable turn zero plays. I had to add winda lock so to prevent it from being degeneracy. Yet, it still serves as a powerfull starter and removal.

Hello everyone,

I am developing my own game and in next 7-14 days will be releasing a public playtest. Its still early in development, so I would like gather as much testers as possible to obtain good feedback on it.

Anyway, I was thinking of making a short trailer for it so that I can make the announcment a bit prettier. So I wanted to ask you, as my primary audience, what would be the most important thing for you to see in trailer for the game? Tycoon games are bit specific thing here since I cant really show off some flashy moves and cinematics like I could for other genres.

Thanks in advance!