My first feedback results

So I shared this game on a chemistry subreddit to get some feedback about a month ago. The feedback was generally positive. I kind of expected this because first of all, most people are nice, and second because I'm 100% confident that my idea is a good one. I think most people who try the game knowing what it is intended to be will be excited by the concept and therefore give positive feedback the first time around. The thing is, this type of resource should have existed for chemists 10 years ago. Even today it only exists because I made it so. I'm not saying this is a well designed resource, but it is a desirable one. So I was expecting positive feedback for that reason.

Some feedback was quite helpful in reshaping my perspective as well. First, I was told that a tutorial or instructions would be helpful. I've always known I'll need a tutorial eventually, but I'm still not sold that I need it quite yet. The instructions thing is a bit more immediate though. I used to think that telling the player to "propose a mechanism" was basically a waste of screen space since once they learn that that is always what they need to do, saying it becomes unnecessary. In hindsight, I was wrong about that. I like to compare this game to chess puzzles since that's basically what I'm going for: chess puzzles but chemistry. In chess puzzles, the instructions "find the best move" almost don't need to be said. That's always the instructions for chess puzzles and players already know that. Despite that, chess puzzles websites still have an instruction on screen telling you to find the best move. I ignore that message, as I'm sure do 99% of users. But the instructions are still there, and I don't claim to be more knowledgeable on chess puzzle game design than the people designing the most popular chess puzzle games available.  So, I added that instruction.

Other feedback was that I should show the target end molecule. I was opposed to this idea at first because I was hoping people would deduce the final molecule based on the reactants. Showing the final molecule would be like giving the answer away, like if you showed the ending position of chess puzzles, the puzzles would become extremely easy. The goal wasn't to find out how to get from A to B, it was to find out what B was, and then show how you get to it. I was also wrong on this point I think, but only for one reason. Chemistry is far more complicated than chess puzzles. In chess puzzles, there is only ever 1 clear answer, but in chemistry multiple things can happen depending on reaction conditions. Sometimes there are major products and minor products. So if I make a puzzle where the target end molecule is the major product, but the player tries to make the minor product, the player is wrong by the game's standards even though they are correct by chemistry standards. It's unfair to penalize them for being right.  If instead I show them that they are supposed to make only one of the several possible products, then it becomes okay to penalize them because now they should know which specific molecule they are trying to make. So I added an info screen to the puzzles that shows the overall reaction. It might make certain puzzles easier, but I think that's okay.

Other than that, I've got over 400 puzzles now, so that's pretty great. We're moving on up. I'll end up with over 1,000 puzzles easy, the question is if I'll ever get to 10,000. The other feedback I received will have to come in a later update: tutorials, a more sophisticated arrow drawing system, "give hint" and "show answer" options, customized random puzzle options (e.g. to practice only SN2 reactions, or only reactions with halides). Always more to be done if I stay motivated (or if the game takes off)!