Board shapes and sizes(Match-3) design and difficulty measurement?

[terenctb]

I'm finally down to state where the mechanics of my game works well enough.
One of the variations of course with any match-3 is to change shapes of the boards as a way of increasing complexity. Design wise the things I have noticed so far are:

1) Adding board edges makes its hard to make matches
2) Making the top half of the board narrower makes the game more difficult than making the bottom half (think an A and a V shaped boards) mainly because of the 'gravity' factor.
3) Adding 'holes' in the middle the board disorients people but doesn't really add difficulty
4) Doing a narrower board is more difficult than a larger board (In general alot of times it seems that making a smaller board with a awkward shape tends to make things tougher).

Not saying any of these observations are 100% accurate. The way I measure difficulty is basically
1) The time i take to finish a board
2) The amount of moves I use to finish it


Are there any other observations and ways to check on difficulty?

[jefferytitan]

Glad to see someone investigating difficulty measures that don't involve reducing time etc. Also, freaky-shaped levels will keep it visually interesting. Reminds me of a game called Spindizzy where you had to get a spinning top through a world full of ramps etc which got more complex as you progressed.


I'm finally down to state where the mechanics of my game works well enough.
One of the variations of course with any match-3 is to change shapes of the boards as a way of increasing complexity. Design wise the things I have noticed so far are:

[terenctb]

I do dislike time as factor. My current game does use it and I doesn't have a 'non timed mode'. That bothers me but I am doing that strictly from the point of view of that I would have to test/tune 2 modes of play rather than one. I am already doing only about 3 levels a week..hopefully i will get up to 7 a week...but let's just see how it goes.

I would do believe instead of decreasing time given to increase board complexity and/or obstacles. I am following a fairly iterative design method....Add one thing..play for a week...write down my thoughts...get some other people to play..write down their thoughts...simplify or remove....


Hmmm..I remember SpinDizzy too...Used to play it on my old Speccy...Ah...loading tapes ...ah Z80 Assembly language...wonder if i can fire up the emu and play it again...i'm always hestitant to do that old memories of games are like old girlfriends...

[jefferytitan]

I do dislike time as factor. My current game does use it and I doesn't have a 'non timed mode'. That bothers me but I am doing that strictly from the point of view of that I would have to test/tune 2 modes of play rather than one. I am already doing only about 3 levels a week..hopefully i will get up to 7 a week...but let's just see how it goes.

You could treat the levels as a 2d space, i.e. you can choose to go to trickier or faster. I haven't encountered any that work like that.


I would do believe instead of decreasing time given to increase board complexity and/or obstacles. I am following a fairly iterative design method....Add one thing..play for a week...write down my thoughts...get some other people to play..write down their thoughts...simplify or remove....

I'd be interested in having a look if you wouldn't mind. I'm usually pretty good at figuring out what makes a game harder, but I'd need to set eyes on it first. Then again, perhaps you've already got that covered. Well, there's always room for extra levels. ;)


Hmmm..I remember SpinDizzy too...Used to play it on my old Speccy...Ah...loading tapes ...ah Z80 Assembly language...wonder if i can fire up the emu and play it again...i'm always hestitant to do that old memories of games are like old girlfriends...

Yeah, I was an Amstrad guy. We used to curse Speccy ports. ;) I think that the emulators miss something. I think perhaps it was just the hardware. Everything ran at the right speed, and the low-res graphics looked okay because the pixels were fuzzy. ;)