Feedback/changes to Squares mode after testing

[zheanna <3]

There are a couple changes to Squares that I think would make the game a little more fun and/or competitive:

1) Guessing an answer that fits a square but is not high enough to pass the existing answer in that square should end your turn. I don't know that a team should get a bunch of chances to guess an answer in one of the squares the way the mode is currently set up. Maybe this would make it too hard given how broad some of the categories are.

2) The game should not end the second an answer gets placed in a box for 3-in-a-row unless all three answers in all three boxes are locked in. The other team should get a chance to "steal" the square by guessing an answer that is higher ranked than the answers in those three boxes. It would be so much more fun to go into a back and forth than to have the game end so quickly. If the square is stolen and results in a tie, send the game to a sudden death round between the two teams for the victory.

Just my thoughts! Interested to hear what other people think about these ideas.

[astarr]

I was really surprised I got to keep going after inaccurate/lower guesses and this was my immediate thought.

[Akira896]

Agreed with the first point but the second point feels like it'd go on forever imo.

[gliv]

Originally posted by Akira896:

Agreed with the first point but the second point feels like it'd go on forever imo.

Agree with this.

[zheanna <3]

Originally posted by Akira896:

Agreed with the first point but the second point feels like it'd go on forever imo.

I think it's possible that it might extend the game if the last square was, say, the bottom right since it has the widest range. But mostly my point on #2 is just that doesn't feel fair to immediately win on an answer that isn't the top for that square when the whole game sort of revolves around trying to lock and/or steal a square like that.

It's definitely not a perfect solution but it gives it kind of that Hollywood Squares vibe. Jackbox are no dummies so I bet something similar was tested internally but the alternative is that a game of Squares could theoretically end SO fast

Thanks for the feedback on my idea though!! I think the game is gonna be a blast to play with a full lobby and I'm excited for it after playing the demo

E: Maybe for #2, the "steal" mechanic would be for that specific square. The losing team gets ONE chance to top the one winning square (unless the winning answer is the top answer for that square) rather than all three in a row. Then you could have one sudden death round that functions kinda like Hilo where whichever team gets the higher answer wins? You run into the problem of what to do with matching answers, but I would say if a team locks an answer in first, the other team has to choose a different answer

[MikeSoChill]

There are now two settings for Squares that address some of this. There's a "Scramble Squares" setting that makes mixes the order of the ranges in each square (1-2 isn't always top-left, for example). There's also "Squares Three-Strike Guessing" which makes three guesses that are on the list but not high enough to claim squares end your turn.

Both of these are off by default so be sure to open the "More Gameplay" tab in the settings if either sound interesting to you!

[kaua0f0m]

Originally posted by MikeSoChill:

There are now two settings for Squares that address some of this. There's a "Scramble Squares" setting that makes mixes the order of the ranges in each square (1-2 isn't always top-left, for example). There's also "Squares Three-Strike Guessing" which makes three guesses that are on the list but not high enough to claim squares end your turn.

Both of these are off by default so be sure to open the "More Gameplay" tab in the settings if either sound interesting to you!

you guys should definetly add a toggle for the second idea he gave, of oonly declaring a winner if the 3 in arow is locked, instead of conquered