Sprint 2 user feedback

Evidence status

The original Sprint 2 questionnaire now shows 12 responses per question. The earlier CSV snapshot contained ten responses and underpins the five accepted findings. The charts do not show when the additional responses were collected or which build they tested; they are not evidence of two participant retests.

Google Forms chart snapshot

Only 2/12 found turn ownership fully clear; none found effects fully clear. Among ten deck builders, only two found the requirements clear. Full counts, screenshots, and transcripts are in Full survey evidence.

Written feedback screenshots

Each finding includes an unchanged comment crop. Comments illustrate concerns, not their frequency or proof of improvement.

Prioritised findings

Implementation review: 9 October 2026. Links use main 01a364f; the linked files match tested revision d0d716b. Later changes are dated separately, not backdated into Sprint 2 or assumed to result from this survey.

Prevent actions during the CPU's turn

Feedback: Reported acting during the CPU's turn; not an independently observed illegal move. #240: High priority.

I was able to make a move in the CPU battle even though it was not my turn

Full source screenshot

Changed: The server rejects out-of-turn actions without saving a transition. Controls lock during submission and uncertain recovery.

Proof: PR #245 — 13 September · rejection/rollback test · actor/pending-state tests.

Still needed: Reproduce the original task on a named deployment.

Make battles faster

Feedback: Players asked for faster CPU battles. The original count remains 5/10. #241: High priority.

It is very slow when you vs the CPU, moves take forever to complete

Full source screenshot

Changed: Batched history reads and fewer identity writes; later, shorter CPU presentation delays.

Proof: PR #245 · PR #338 — 1 October · delay function · three-query test · unchanged-identity test.

Still needed: Measure deployed click-to-result speed and retest pacing.

Explain turns, moves, and effects

Feedback: Players wanted clearer turns, move costs, effects, and action results. #242: High priority.

A small summary of active effects and recent moves would make the battle easier to follow without changing the core gameplay.

Full source screenshot

Changed: Turn/request messages, server-projected effectiveness, active effect magnitudes/durations, and grouped action outcomes.

Proof: PR #318 — 26 September · effect source · duration/outcome tests · server-effectiveness tests · grouped-action tests.

Still needed: Check players can explain turns, effects, and outcomes.

Show deck rules and explain invalid decks

Feedback: Players wanted a requirements checklist and exact invalid-deck reasons. #243: Medium priority.

A small checklist showing the deck requirements while building would make it easier to see what is still missing.

Full source screenshot

Changed: Live card/point counts, owned-copy limits, disabled invalid saves, and server rejection messages that preserve the draft.

Proof: PR #341 — 2 October · checklist source · validation/copy tests.

Still needed: Retest invalid saves, ownership visibility, and when to use decks.

Make events, quizzes, and rewards easier to follow

Feedback: Players wanted clearer event states, quiz instructions, reward context, and first-time guidance. #244: Medium priority.

The quiz needs clearer instructions before starting, especially around the timer and what happens after finishing. The reward message should also be more noticeable.

Full source screenshot

Changed: Map-independent event discovery, text availability labels, quiz countdown/progress, and earned cards linked to Collection.

Proof: PR #336 — 30 September · event-list tests · score/review tests · awarded-copy tests · result source.

Remaining gap: A complete first-time guide, pre-quiz example, reward preview, and explanation of reward use are not established by these changes.

Traceability summary

The five findings link accepted issues to implementation and passing local regressions. Issue closure is not participant acceptance; release checks in #167 remain separate.

Other requests needing review

Map accuracy, quiz variety, visual polish, first-use effect explanations, and non-battle speed still need evidence; mocked-map tests do not establish location accuracy.

Local implementation verification

9 October 2026 · d0d716b · 165 tests passed across 12 files (117 web tests; 48 API tests). Services, maps, and database clients were mocked. Run details are retained below; these application checks were not rerun for this copy edit.

No browser, live database, hosted CI, deployed journey, or participant checks were run for this update. The 14 September snapshot is separate.

Follow-up evidence required

Retest each affected task on a named deployment, including pre-quiz timing and first-time discovery; measure CPU click-to-result speed on mobile and desktop. Record build/date, anonymous session code, device/browser, completion, assistance, and whether the finding improved. Link results from #167 without publishing identities.

Full survey evidence

View all original charts, written responses, and transcripts

Eight supplied screenshots are preserved unchanged, with every complete visible comment transcribed below. This includes positive and "no problem" responses, not only criticisms. The six question screenshots show different response totals because these are individual written questions, not a new participant count. Their cropped lists do not always show every reported response.

The two earlier battle excerpts show seven and five complete comments, but no question heading or response total. Across all screenshots, dates, tested builds, and response identifiers remain unknown. Comments across questions must not be added together as unique participants or used to recalculate the original CSV frequencies.

The originals have not been cropped, redrawn, or replaced. Chart counts, question-level response totals, visible comments, and participant retests remain separate. These are reports of the problems, not proof of fixes.

Exploration and events — 12 responses

Map understanding (ratings 1–5): 0, 0, 3, 3, 6. Event states: 7 all clear, 5 some clear. Event list: 4 useful, 6 partially useful, 2 did not notice it. Collection date not shown.

Quiz and rewards — 12 responses

Quiz instructions (ratings 1–5): 0, 1, 2, 3, 6. Timer: 9 clear and reasonable, 1 too short, 1 unclear, 1 did not complete a quiz. Reward: 7 clear, 4 partially clear, 1 did not receive one. Collection date not shown.

Cards and decks — 12 responses

Owned cards: 8 clear, 4 partially clear. Deck requirements: 2 clear, 7 partially clear, 1 unclear, 2 did not build a deck. Invalid-deck explanation: 2 clear, 3 partially clear, 1 unclear, 6 did not encounter an invalid deck. Collection date not shown.

CPU battle turns and actions — 12 responses

Turn ownership: 2 clear, 7 partially clear, 3 unclear. Actions and move costs (ratings 1–5): 0, 4, 3, 4, 1. Move results: 2 understood, 5 understood most of the time, 3 rarely understood, 2 did not understand. Collection date not shown.

Battle effects and results — 12 responses

Effects and affinity: 0 clear, 9 partially clear, 3 unclear. Match result: 6 clear, 2 partially clear, 4 did not finish a battle. Collection date not shown.

Navigation, readability, and screen size — 12 responses

Ratings 1–5. Navigation: 0, 0, 4, 6, 2. Readability: 0, 1, 2, 4, 5. Screen-size experience: 0, 0, 3, 6, 3. Collection date not shown.

Visual consistency and overall satisfaction — 12 responses

Ratings 1–5. Visual consistency: 0, 0, 6, 5, 1. Overall satisfaction: 0, 0, 7, 5, 0. Collection date not shown.

Reported bugs — 12 responses

Bug self-reports: 1 yes, 8 no, 3 unsure. This chart does not establish reproduction, severity, or the absence of defects. Collection date not shown.

Willingness to use Wits World again — 12 responses

Would use again: 2 definitely, 6 probably, 3 unsure, 1 probably not, 0 definitely not. Collection date not shown.

Written battle feedback — excerpt 1

Seven complete comments, transcribed verbatim. Question text and dates are not shown.

1. Make the battle faster.
2. Optimize the slowness and make it clearer when it is your turn to play.
3. A short battle log or clearer effect messages would make it easier to understand why health and status values changed after each move.
4. Showing move costs and active effects closer to the action buttons would make battles easier to follow without looking around the screen.
5. It is very slow when you vs the CPU, moves take forever to complete
6. The battle flow was clearer than I expected. The only thing I would add is a quick note explaining special card effects when they first appear.
7. Faster battles, better indication on what is actually happening, and better animations

Written battle feedback — excerpt 2

Five complete comments, transcribed verbatim. The partial entry at the top is not transcribed; question text and dates are not shown.

1. A small summary of active effects and recent moves would make the battle easier to follow without changing the core gameplay.
2. Way too slow.
3. Make the battle animation a bit more visual to illustrate moves being made.
4. The battle screen needs clearer feedback after each action. Effects, buffs, debuffs, and why a move worked or failed should be explained more directly.
5. Fix slowness

Exploration and events — 9 responses, 7 visible comments

Question: What, if anything, was confusing about the exploration map or events? 9 responses reported; 7 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. Nothing
2. The map was mostly easy to follow, but the difference between upcoming and too-far events could be explained a bit more clearly.
3. The map itself was clear. The event list was helpful, but I would make the sorting or filtering options more obvious.
4. When selecting the event, it does specify the amount of questions or the type of questions the event gives.
5. The map was fairly clear, but I did not notice the event list at first. Making that option more visible would help.
6. 3D Map can show the event locations inaccurately
7. The map was understandable after looking around for a bit. The event states were mostly clear, but a short legend or label explanation would help.

Quiz and reward improvements — 8 responses, 7 visible comments

Question: What would improve the quiz or reward experience? 8 responses reported; 7 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. Nothing
2. It would help to show a short reward summary after each quiz, including what was earned and how it can be used.
3. The quiz worked well overall. A preview of possible reward types before starting would make it clearer what users are working toward.
4. I would add a short example before the quiz starts. I was not fully sure how the quiz flow and rewards were supposed to connect.
5. More types of quizzes or on different subjects
6. The quiz was generally understandable, but it would help to explain the reward before and after the quiz so the outcome feels clearer.
7. The quiz needs clearer instructions before starting, especially around the timer and what happens after finishing. The reward message should also be more noticeable.

Card collection and deck building — 8 responses, 7 visible comments

Question: What would improve the card collection or deck-building experience? 8 responses reported; 7 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. A small checklist showing the deck requirements while building would make it easier to see what is still missing.
2. The collection would be easier to scan if owned cards stood out more clearly from locked or unavailable cards.
3. Make it visually better
4. The collection view was easier to understand than the deck-building flow. I would make the deck option more inviting or explain when users should use it.
5. Better visuals
6. The card and deck sections were understandable overall, but a checklist of deck requirements would make the process easier to follow.
7. Card ownership and deck rules should be more visible. When a deck cannot be saved, the app should list the exact missing requirement instead of leaving the user to guess.

Unexpected behaviour and first-time guidance — 11 responses, 8 visible comments

Question: Did anything behave differently from what you expected? 11 responses reported; 8 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. No
2. Nothing major. Some of the status labels and battle effect changes took a moment to understand at first.
3. No major surprises. I expected a bit more guidance the first time opening the card and battle sections.
4. I expected the quiz and deck sections to have more guidance before starting. The app worked, but some text and prompts were easy to miss.
5. Battles
6. Nothing behaved very differently from expected, but some sections needed more context before they felt intuitive.
7. No
8. I expected more guidance when moving between events, cards, decks, and battles. Some screens assumed I already understood the system.

Reported bugs — 7 responses, 7 visible comments

Question: If you encountered a bug, describe what you did and what happened. 7 responses reported; 7 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. I was able to make a move in the CPU battle even though it was not my turn
2. No bug encountered during testing.
3. I did not run into a clear bug, but a few transitions or explanations felt like they could be smoother for a first-time user.
4. No bug encountered.
5. Battle took very long to finish. Couldn't understand how some moves were made
6. No clear bug encountered during testing.
7. I am not sure if it was a bug, but some feedback messages were easy to miss and made it unclear whether an action had worked.

Most important improvement — 12 responses, 8 visible comments

Question: If we could improve only one thing, what should it be? 12 responses reported; 8 complete comments visible. Dates and tested build are not shown.

1. App speed
2. CPU Battle
3. Improve the feedback messages for event statuses, rewards, and battle effects so users can understand changes more quickly.
4. Add a simple first-time guide or tooltips for the main sections so users know what to do next.
5. Have the site and battles run faster
6. Make the instructions and important labels easier to notice, especially for quizzes and deck-building.
7. Battles
8. Add clearer explanations for first-time users, especially around event states, deck requirements, and battle effects.

Collection method and limitations

The raw CSV remains outside the public repository.

• Participants completed the same structured Google Forms questionnaire after using the Wits World player experience.
• Fixed-choice answers were counted directly. Repeated written concerns were grouped only where they described the same product area in the original ten-response CSV. Updated fixed-choice counts come from the supplied charts; written findings are not extrapolated to the two additional responses.
• The written screenshot excerpts support the feedback themes separately. Visible comments are not counted as additional or uniquely identified participants.
• Participant recruitment, demographic profile, device, browser, tested commit, and facilitator observations were not captured in the supplied export.
• The responses are therefore suitable for identifying usability themes, but not for browser-specific diagnosis, performance benchmarking, or statistical claims about the wider student population.
• Follow-up testing must use the same affected tasks and record whether each accepted finding improved, remained, or regressed.

Detailed counts

Each chart shows twelve responses from the same questionnaire. The collection date/range and tested build are not shown. Numeric charts use ratings 1–5; their endpoint labels are not visible, so the counts are transcribed without assuming a named rating scale.

Area	Main signal in the updated charts	Related finding
Events and rewards	7/12 found all event states clear; 4/12 found the event list useful.	Events, quizzes and rewards
Deck building	Only 2/10 responses from deck builders found requirements clear.	Deck rules
Battle clarity	Only 2/12 found turn ownership clear; none found effects fully clear.	Battle explanations
Overall experience	7/12 rated satisfaction 3 and 5/12 rated it 4.	Follow-up usability sessions
Future use and bugs	8/12 would probably or definitely use again; 1 reported a bug and 3 were unsure.	Investigate before claiming a defect or fix

All nine original charts and their text captions are kept in the Full survey evidence section.

Verification details

Run date: 9 October 2026. Application revision: d0d716b. Result: 165 tests passed across 12 files.

• Web: 117 tests, 9 files. Vitest/Testing Library in jsdom, using mocked API responses and map providers. Files: battle-controls, battle-presentation, battle-log-presentation, effect-presentation, decks-page, deck-save-bar, exploration, challenge-page, and challenge-rewards in apps/web/tests.
• API: 48 tests, 3 files. Vitest with mocked database clients. Files: cpu-match-service.test.ts, history-performance.test.ts, and player-identity.test.ts in apps/api/tests. The history fixture simulates query delays; it is not a real database latency benchmark.

Reproduce with npx vitest run followed by the listed test paths from each application directory. Build the @wits-world/game-rules and @wits-world/account-policy workspaces first.

No browser, live database, hosted CI, deployed journey, or participant checks were run for this update. The 14 September evidence remains a separate historical snapshot.

Original performance measurements

The original investigation recorded local identity medians of 738 ms → 185 ms and history queries of 83 → 3. Those measurements were not rerun here. Query-count tests and shorter animation intervals prove specific changes, not deployed click-to-result speed.

AI declaration

Prepared with Codex[gpt-5.6-sol], then edited with Codex-CLI[GPT-6] and Codex[GPT-6]. This distillation consolidates repeated explanations and attributions. Originals, counts, provenance, code/test links, recorded results, and retest limits remain. Crops embed unchanged PNG bytes. No new responses, application results, or participant outcomes were added.