Some thoughts on Triton (testing)


#1

Hey!
I am currently working as a software tester. I thought it would be nice to test out Triton (we have an active gaming community within the teams). So I involved 10 testers into a game of 11 people. I asked everyone who is interested to give me some feedback and report any bugs they found.
Regard this as feedback from a lot of people. I am a basically a messenger. The game has been running for about a week now and this is what I have so far:

  • (Mobile) Inserting incorrect password for a game lets you browse the game until you can hit the “Join” button. Then you are informed that the password was incorrect. This will give some intel on players and is also a bit confusing
  • (Desktop) First time joining the game was confusing. Selecting a race from above (before joining) hides the join notification/button. There should be a join button when a free slot is pressed from the race list or the join button (the notification line with the green background) should not ever be hidden
  • Would be nice to be able to raze a planet before leaving it to an enemy (to not give the attacker even a larger advantage). This should not be free though - the defender should pay $10x economy + $10x industry + $10x science to raze the planet to 0 0 0
  • Would be nice to have a “workplace” mode where every player sees every other player in randomized colors. This would mean that it is harder to check someone elses screen for intel (we are working in the same area). Also a button for re-randomizing the colors would be nice if anyone catches up on your placements. (Again, would be local feature only)
  • Endgame should have a timeline like civ5, showing the history of the game (what areas were conquered, units lost, star count, visual display for it and so on. Maybe even diplomacy)
  • One player lost their last star while they were flying to capture another one. For the period of the flight they had 0 stars. Production hit and the player received no banking or experimentation bonuses. Is this intended?
  • Someone suggested a new research - Critical strike/Tactical strike: Adds a (% x level) chance that an attack round in combat deals bonus weapon damage (+1 weapons or something?). This would make risk-taking a more viable part of the game as you can get a little “lucky”. Not too much though as this would break the combat.

This is it so far. If I get anything more out of the players that are left I will let you know. I hope this helps!

Cheers.


#2

Good work… this is great: a dedicate testing team for NP! There’s some decent suggestions in there (although not sure about the “work place” changing colours idea… seems a little convoluted to me).

Re the Civ 5 time line thing - check out Dysp’s Game replayer: Game Replayer

On the subject of adding “luck” to attacks, this topic has been raised many times before, and most people seem to agree that the game works best when you know how the battles will pan out. This is the raw strategy element of the game… whist there’s still plenty of room for the unknown in the diplomacy / backstabbing side brought about by the players.


#3

While many suggestions are good, I really can’t imagine the changing colours idea. It doesn’t sound like a good move at all. Way too confusing. :scream:

The razing a planet option is one I’ve been contemplating in a recent game and…I just don’t see it :dizzy_face: . I could understand the idea of destroying economy to get my money back so the enemy doesn’t :angry: . But razing industry and science? I’d hardly ever destroy my active infrastructure :volcano: . Taking Stars back is important after all. Vindictive players would just raze everything on their stars when suiciding, not a pleasant thought. :pouting_cat: I wouldn’t mind if it were an optional element, though.

Critical point research? I have an uncertain relationship with Lady Luck :smirk_cat: . Experimentation serves me poorly as it is. I can’t help but imagine the chaos unfolding as I abused this mechanic to perform Hannibalic or Alexandrian feats of wiping bigger armies off the map. :boom: Could be a nice optional mechanic same as with turn based games and real time. :blush: Good if you wanna play that way, bad if you gotta. It’s something I’d actually be interested in seeing in the perspective of having the choice.

One thing I support is the idea of lots of different playing styles. An advantage of board games is that they’re inherently malleable for players to pick and choose what aspects or tweaks they play with, unlike video games. An online board game should continue this Monopoly-ized legacy! :heart_eyes_cat:

  • :snail: Smulm’s two cents

#4

Regarding the Banking and Experimentation pause when a player has no stars:
That’s there so a player who has been defeated can’t just keep sending all their Banking/Science income to a player still in the game.