A multiplayer game, really? Where are the players interactions?

[Delrusant]

A multiplayer game, really? Where are the players interactions?

I am talking as a player of board game, the principle behind this one is not bad, but it would never work for board game player as is, there is neither cooperation nor competition, it could be played only as a single player game where player compare score and it would be the same.

The only interactions are the monster and fate "tokens" placement from time to time. And even this not important as you encounter more tokens by yourself and the game than from other players.

There is no limited ressource mechanics (4 space each with same reward per city, no dwindling ressource (you can take as many as you want from each town). Gold has nearly no use apart from one character, but there are so many reward in gold.

You can't really see what the other players do (can't zoom on cards or anyhting), nor can you see their fights or anything (where the other players usually check that your actions correspond to your dice or ressources).


I have played 2 games, two different characters and their was no fun apart from the discovery, nothing to chat about, nothing making me wants to go back to the game as it is "sold" : Multiplayer. The witcher adventure gale as a solo board game could be good to pass a few moments along a quests where you try to beat your best score. And that sums it up.

Either for the beta you don't want to reveal too much and only tests the server back end, bugs due to configuration or unexpected actions by players. Or you clearly need to change the sale pitch of the game,.

 

[Pralev.969]

I tend to agree. These two of my games were the most fun:
1. A game, where opponent left and I played the rest of the game solo. It was actually quite enjoayble. No boring waiting for opponent's turn, a lot of time to read all texts on my cards...
2. A game with 3 additional players, where we talked in chat more than we played.

 

[Nilspils2]

It would be really nice if you could see more of what they are doing, especially when committing to battle: Why not show what dices they use and how they spend them!? Also more insight in other aspects would be nice so you do not feel that you are just playing a single player game with great loading times...

 

[Guest 3713529]

I agree on everything. The name is misleading: The Witcher Adventure Game. Where's the adventure in all of this? The game is basically a race to who finishes first, when I was hoping for something like a cooperative effort to solve a quest, with multiple variables, actual clues to be found (not meaningless tokens), combat where the group needs to work as a team to take down powerful monsters, etc...

As is, the game does not allow for immersion, which is a major bummer considering the richness and beauty of the setting. In about 10 games I never cared for actually reading the questlines, nor I felt like I cared about what the other players were doing (except when they were taking forever to make a move). I was just speeding through my objectives. Winning a game didn't give me any sense of accomplishment, nor losing made me question what I did wrong. Everything resulted in a sharp and loud "Meh!".

 

[dragonbird]

There was something about moving monsters from where you were to the next region, which ought to be some way of either helping or hindering another player. I don't know about anyone else, but I was totally unable to work out how to get it to work, and how to make use of it. Maybe it would be more obvious in the tabletop version.

But yes, I agree. It would definitely be better with more interaction. It felt like the only thing to do when someone else was playing was chat with the others who were waiting their turn.

 

[disi]

But yes, I agree. It would definitely be better with more interaction. It felt like the only thing to do when someone else was playing was chat with the others who were waiting their turn.

This is what I did most of the time. It was fun to see others get a wound and you say "Outsch, what just happened" and he replies: "Damn, sirens again..."

I think it is already as much multiplayer as you like? It also prevents new players from being ganked. Imagine you could throw 3-4 gold monsters on the other player shortly after start, because you have figured it out and the other didn't yet.

The matchmaking feedback goes on GOG, but I think there should really be a player rank system and a list of games to choose from.

 

[andreabinda]

I'm afraid I've to agree.
The multiplayer is really quite useless, there's no interaction with other players. When the other player disconnects, and you play solo there's no difference. Except you don't have to wait for his turn

 

[Hephaustus]

I have to chime in as well. I don't quite understand how to play this game. I would never play this game online with strangers. I can very well see the game as a physical boxed game with friends, and possibly with friends online where the main enjoyment is the chatting. Here are a couple of related thoughts, though:

* Currently the game is a competition between players. As a Witcher-fan, it feels weird to play AGAINST your friends Dandelion, Triss, and Yarpen. If anything, I want to play WITH them, against the game (like Arkham Horror). The War Wheel (whatever it is called) is cool, but it should do something other than just provide another enemy (hey, even if there are ten enemies in a region, I only have to fight one, so it does not really matter). The War advancement should be something like the Nilfgaardian empire conquers a region, making it difficult and dangerous to travel there. Or triggering the Wild Hunt.
* Related to the point above, it could be cool if you play semi-cooperatively with the other players, but you can still "win". If you finish your objectives first or have the most VP, then you get some points that track your performance in a "league". However, if you and the other players let the War Advancement go too far, then you all lose and lose points in the league. So you all have an incentive to help each other first and foremost, but secondly also to be better than the people you play with.
* It is difficult to immerse myself in the lore when I play my turn, because I constantly feel I have to do things quickly in order not to annoy the other players. I want to read the cards properly, and perhaps even draw cards where you have to make difficult moral decisions that affect yourself, your co-players, and the game ("the lesser evil"-type cards) -- but these cards of course are not somethings where you quickly just click the first alternative but you need to think a bit.

 

[EmperorZorn]

The matchmaking feedback goes on GOG, but I think there should really be a player rank system and a list of games to choose from.

Definately~

I know this isn't possible because it cannot stray too far from the boardgame,
but for long-term motivation I'd like to be able to unlock other player characters from the Witcher universe.

The players could keep their VP after each game and use them to unlock new characters or visual changes.
It should be one of the main goals of the devs, because they'll want people to find other players online instead of empty servers after a week of success.

Not going to happen, I know.

But how else are you going to keep people playing this game ?
Because if there is no one to play with we don't need a digital boardgame with online matchmaking~