I have previously spoken about my attempt to deal with growth in Municipality being complicated. The last time, I sought to address this through reducing the frequency of consulting the growth chart.
Unfortunately, in further playtests, this didn't seem to do the trick.
This time, I've figured out a way to get rid of of the chart entirely.
Here is the chart that has proven to be so opaque to my testers:
The way it works is that you locate the property type in the second column, then follow it to the right to determine what affected its star rating (previously known as growth).
And here is its replacement:
In this version, you locate the property, and any stars leading out of it show you what stars it gains or loses for each association.
To be fair, The new version does not contain all of the information of the previous one. I have moved the Bonus Tax Revenue and the Star Limit to other components. However, I have not been forced to alter the actual growth mechanic to accommodate this new method of displaying it.
I'm not sure that this version is actually better. I need to do a couple of playtests first.
Does anyone think the chart version was clearer than my new one?
Unfortunately, in further playtests, this didn't seem to do the trick.
This time, I've figured out a way to get rid of of the chart entirely.
Here is the chart that has proven to be so opaque to my testers:
The way it works is that you locate the property type in the second column, then follow it to the right to determine what affected its star rating (previously known as growth).
And here is its replacement:
In this version, you locate the property, and any stars leading out of it show you what stars it gains or loses for each association.
To be fair, The new version does not contain all of the information of the previous one. I have moved the Bonus Tax Revenue and the Star Limit to other components. However, I have not been forced to alter the actual growth mechanic to accommodate this new method of displaying it.
I'm not sure that this version is actually better. I need to do a couple of playtests first.
Does anyone think the chart version was clearer than my new one?
Don't like it. The grid is waaaaay easier for me to read.
ReplyDeleteI haven't played the game, but I agree the grid is much more straightforward.
ReplyDeleteWould it be possible to put the relevant info on the tiles themselves? They'd get more cluttered, but it might be easier to figure out.
Grid all the way.
ReplyDeleteWhat about instead of the grid, just 3 paragraph style instructions.
Ex:
Residential (+icon):
-2 Stars For Each Adjacent Industrial Building
+1 Star For Each Adjacent Residential
+1 Star For Each Adjacent Park
+1 Star For Each Connected Industrial
+1 Star For Each Connected Commercial
Residential Buildings Can Have No More than 5 Stars
This way, when going through the buildings, you just go the relevant paragraph for the building, and work down the list.
Yes its the same information that's in the grid, but it doesn't mental navigation with skipping over blank bits.
Wow, the consensus is quickly forming against the new design. This is surprising. I expected an 80/20 split against the old grid.
ReplyDeleteDave, the tiles are already too cramped for me to put all of these associations on them. Another problem is that the information would become obscured once the ownership and star tokens are placed on the tiles.
For myself, I like the suggested text instructions. However, do people respond well to blocks of text?
I'm with everyone else. The grid is far easier to read than the new design.
ReplyDeleteI think your fundamental problem is the concept of adjacency versus connectedness. Eliminate one or the other and your design becomes conceptually much more straightforward, and therefore much easier to display.
I have every book ever published by Edward Tufte. I strongly recommend his work to anyone trying to convey information in a graphical way.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/index
I remember studying him a bit back in school. Maybe it's time to dig out my old books.
ReplyDelete