Cool idea. Unfortunately, you can't really see the patterns until the ball starts making that streak. If you just added that streak to the end of each segment, so the player can see the shapes they're making, it would all make sense. For now it's more toy than puzzle, but it's a novel one.
Thanks for sharing your feedback, I think the idea of adding the streak to each segment is interesting, and it may have some potential. My only concern is that the screen might get too crowded -- but it might also work very well. I'll keep this idea in mind going forward.
I'm not certain I understand what you mean by saying it is more of a toy than a puzzle, but I think get it. By saying it is more of a toy, do you mean it is less about thinking to try and solve the puzzle and more about pushing buttons and seeing what the "toy" does? (Consider using more well defined words when giving feedback, that way the reader doesn't risk a misinterpretation!)
I noticed that those who are able to problem solve their way through the puzzles (with not toooo much trial and error) picked up on some form of these 2 ideas. If you're interested in the 2 ideas then read below, and if not then no worries! I really do appreciate your feedback.
The 2 key ideas (Semi Spoiler-Alert below)
- The first important idea is that rotating segments are simultaneously able to add and negate to each other's lengths. What does that mean? Well in the gif below, when the segments are horizontal their total lengths add up, but when the segments are vertical their total lengths negate each other. Notice that the blue ball moves in an almost perfectly horizontal line, and that the numbers add up to 0!
- The second important idea is: how do we make sense of the numbers?! The numbers represent the direction and speed of a rotation. Most people figure that out, but the big idea here is that certain numbers work well together for certain scenarios. I don't want to give too much away here, but consider this: Is it better for the yellow (long) segment to spin fast, or is better for the pink (shorter) segment to spin fast?
These aren't the only ways to interpret the puzzles, I've seen some people surprise me with their own way of breaking things down. Ideally, the mechanics of it all are enjoyable enough for a player to have fun even if they don't exactly know what they're doing.
I hope this breakdown was helpful :)
3 years ago (+1)
That's exactly what I meant, yes. The player just changes the inputs and watches what happens, but there's a specific desired outcome and the connection between the two is obscured. Maybe I'm just not that smart, but I could use help (from the game) making that connection.
The two key ideas you present were immediately obvious, but the inherent imprecision of guessing the various angles and distances between objects means there is still going to be a lot of trial and error, which goes against the very precise nature of the puzzles themselves. The arms follow a very specific, clean pattern but the player must "guess and check" out of a finite and discrete but rather large possibility space because that pattern is hard to follow, especially at higher speeds.
It seems like you could go one of two ways. You could make it less precise, more messy, and more silly. Or, you could give the player tools to make better decisions within your very. The first way is simple and could be pretty fun. Turn the integer inputs into a dial or something else imprecise and with continuous values. Maybe even add noise or other interactions, like bouncing off of obstacles. Maybe let the player build the arm in whatever configuration they want.
The second would be more appropriate for what I think was your intention. You can give the player (optional) tools, like streaks on all arms to help visualize, or maybe a polar grid for reference, or maybe the option to scale the speed or scale it automatically. Again, these can be optional to remove clutter, but they give the player better information. As it is now, the player only really feels the difference between "fast" and "slow" or CW and CCW, but they have to give that feeling a number somehow. How do I choose between, say, 1:3:5 and 1:5:7?
Of course, if trial-and-error is the goal, you could just shrink the possibility space. Or, add more in-between levels that teach these differences before testing the player on harder levels. Or some combination of all of these, or none of them.
Good job regardless. There's definitely potential here, if you do keep working on it after the jam or reuse the idea in other games. Sorry if this is more feedback than you were hoping for, but I promise I mean well.
No need to say sorry, this is great feedback, and I really appreciate the thought and energy you are putting into helping me improve this game.
There is a lot for me to think about based on what your comments. You're right about the second approach, I don't want the game to get too silly. So the question now is: how do I help the player from feeling like the solution is too obscure.
I think reducing the possibility space is a great start. I also like the idea of optional streaks for all of the segments.
You're feedback has been very helpful, and I appreciate it very much!
Hi,
I am releasing my Catan inspired deck-building tower defense game to steam soon: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2939570/Tower_Knight/
It is not similar to Line Bender, but you might like it :)