It would be nice to able to see your own cards when the other peope are playing. Also if we could perhaps double click and read the cards that the other players have in their hands. Also the text at the turn of the other players sometimes is too fast to read (such as when battles occur)
As a partially colour blind person, initially the purple/blue magnifying glass icons colours were somewhat confusing. It's mostly OK when choosing which one to get (where it matters the most i guess) but less so on the character summary tab and especially on the map in locations where it's hard to tell whether its purple, blue or purple/blue. Increasing the contrast between them or changing colour pallet could help, something to keep in mind.
I have this eyes impairment too. Maybe changing the colors to higher contrasts as a option would be possible?
I think, too, that the color scheme is bad. I'm not color blind, but I still see the three magnifying glass icons as 3 different shades of purple. It should be red like the traffic lamp, blue like the sky and a third basic color like green or yellow or something like that, not this mish-mash purple mixture. Also, the proofs have different icons, maybe leads could have differing pictures on them, too.
Can anyone tell me how a 16VP quest is harder than an 8 VP one? After the couple of games i played, it looks to me like all of them need the same amount of proof, all have equally "expensive" sidequests and, where applicable, a comparable final fight... did i overlook something?
Mechanically the game seems to work well enough. My main concern is player interaction. Currently the game feels very single player. It's like you're in your own world and you have no significant impact on the other players. You're just racing to see who wins first. What the game needs is more ways to interact with your friends. It'd add some much needed strategy. Currently the only way I can really affect my opponent is if I get the option to put a monster in a region or move around the flags. The game really does sorely need more ways to interact with other players.
One way to increase this interactivity would be to have the game be more cooperative instead of competitive. Have an overarching goal that the players need to work together to accomplish, perhaps a big bad that needs to be taken down, something that actively works against the players while the players work against it. This wouldn't necessarily even require an overhaul of the games mechanics, you could probably pull it off with a boss deck of cards or something along those lines. The fact that all the player characters are allies in the lore would help lend to this scenario fitting in well with the setting in general as well.
There really are a variety of ways you could introduce this increased player interaction but fact is? The game needs it and needs it badly. I can't help but think that this game will not be very fun after you've played it a few times if you don't have the randomness of other players to assist you or actively work against you in meaningful ways. Board games are to bring friends together, they're inherently heavily social and the best board games I've played have really focused on the fact that you're playing with other people.
Additionally, characters are all very combat focused with their development. If you made the game more cooperative you could for instance make some characters good at combat while others good at diplomacy. While Geralt is going around dealing with monster threats that are appearing on the board you could have Dandelion going around and performing diplomacy quests. Each are doing what they're good at individually but their doing this assists each other in the overall goal. I'm thinking akin to Arkham Horror in how monsters are popping up all over the place. While the non-combat characters are trying to seal gates the combat characters are trying to keep the non-combat characters alive.
Think of this scenario. Dandelion is in a town doing his thing to advance the cause but is attacked by a monster that Geralt hadn't gotten around to killing yet or it just spawned on him! Now, Dandelion is absolutely terrible at combat so this is a bad scenario. Triss is not near enough to assist and neither is Geralt. So instead Triss sacrifices her turn to teleport Geralt to Dandelion so he can take the fight instead and thus (if he wins the fight) free to Dandelion to complete his quest.
But yeah, these are just suggestions but I really do hope you take them to heart. I want this game to succeed and I just don't see that happening if the game doesn't get a hell of a lot more player interaction going on, and like I said, the lore would suggest going more with a cooperative sort of interaction over competitive interaction. It makes no sense for instance for Triss to summon a monster on Yarpens head.
One way to increase this interactivity would be to have the game be more cooperative instead of competitive. Have an overarching goal that the players need to work together to accomplish, perhaps a big bad that needs to be taken down, something that actively works against the players while the players work against it. This wouldn't necessarily even require an overhaul of the games mechanics, you could probably pull it off with a boss deck of cards or something along those lines. The fact that all the player characters are allies in the lore would help lend to this scenario fitting in well with the setting in general as well.
There really are a variety of ways you could introduce this increased player interaction but fact is? The game needs it and needs it badly. I can't help but think that this game will not be very fun after you've played it a few times if you don't have the randomness of other players to assist you or actively work against you in meaningful ways. Board games are to bring friends together, they're inherently heavily social and the best board games I've played have really focused on the fact that you're playing with other people.
Additionally, characters are all very combat focused with their development. If you made the game more cooperative you could for instance make some characters good at combat while others good at diplomacy. While Geralt is going around dealing with monster threats that are appearing on the board you could have Dandelion going around and performing diplomacy quests. Each are doing what they're good at individually but their doing this assists each other in the overall goal. I'm thinking akin to Arkham Horror in how monsters are popping up all over the place. While the non-combat characters are trying to seal gates the combat characters are trying to keep the non-combat characters alive.
Think of this scenario. Dandelion is in a town doing his thing to advance the cause but is attacked by a monster that Geralt hadn't gotten around to killing yet or it just spawned on him! Now, Dandelion is absolutely terrible at combat so this is a bad scenario. Triss is not near enough to assist and neither is Geralt. So instead Triss sacrifices her turn to teleport Geralt to Dandelion so he can take the fight instead and thus (if he wins the fight) free to Dandelion to complete his quest.
But yeah, these are just suggestions but I really do hope you take them to heart. I want this game to succeed and I just don't see that happening if the game doesn't get a hell of a lot more player interaction going on, and like I said, the lore would suggest going more with a cooperative sort of interaction over competitive interaction. It makes no sense for instance for Triss to summon a monster on Yarpens head.
Last edited:
I've played two games so far - one 1-quest game and one 3-quest game. I played with Enclave996 both times which is why we're likely to be posting similar comments.
Some comments on the game so far:
1. Unless there are some mechanisms for player interaction that I haven't discovered yet, the game is essentially multiplayer solitaire, with the only significant effect of the other player being that you have to "race" them to the finish (so basically, they just serve to put a "clock" on your own gameplay). I've only played 2-player games so far, but it doesn't seem like adding a 3rd or 4th player would affect the game much other than to increase downtime between turns.
Multiplayer solitaire games can sometimes work, but almost all the good ones involve players taking their actions simultaneously so as to minimize downtime (e.g. Race for the Galaxy) or alternating micro-turns very quickly (e.g. Dominion) - and even then, your actions have at least some impact on other players, even if it's just denying them access to resources.
In my opinion, this game would benefit greatly from some sort of cooperative gameplay mechanic (competitive mechanics don't really make sense given the theme). As an example of a game that handles this sort of thing relatively well, I would point you towards "Legendary - The Marvel Deckbuilding Game". Each player drafts cards into their deck from a common pool, so the players have to plan together to make sure that everyone is getting cards that synergize well and that multiple players aren't competing too heavily for the same card types. The players then have to cooperate to deal with threats that, if left unchallenged, will harm all of them and will eventually lead to everyone losing - but at the same time, players earn victory points for the various heroic deeds they perform, and the player with the most points at the end is the winner, thereby preserving both competitive and cooperative elements.
So my suggestion would be to add some kind of "players against the board" system where events and monsters will eventually start to harm the players if not dealt with. Players can still earn VP for addressing these common threats, but are forced to cooperate to manage them to prevent game-over. This would also allow you to diversify the different characters' powers more - it currently feels like everyone just has different ways of getting good at combat, but with a diversity of threats you could have specialized problems that a certain character is better at dealing with than the others.
If you're willing to consider major mechanics overhauls, you might also want to look at the way actions are selected in "multiplayer solitaire" games like Race for the Galaxy and Puerto Rico. In these games, when a player selects an action, all players perform that action, but the player who picked it gets a slight "perk" - optionally, other players may then be unable to select that same action in the same round. This reduces downtime while simultaneously increasing player interaction and strategy (because you can indirectly inconvenience your opponents by choosing an action that benefits you more than them).
2. The game feels much too easy thus far. Players can start pulling their best cards out of the "Development" pool immediately, meaning that after a few turns of developing and charging up, combat against all but the toughest opponents becomes so trivial that it's almost yawn-worthy. Another negative effect of this is that the players draft all their coolest cards right at the start, and then get progressively less interesting card choices as the game plays on. You want the progression curve to go in the other direction - the player should have a constant sense of building up and becoming more and more powerful, not a huge initial spike in power followed by diminishing returns for the rest of the game. Overall, the game is sorely lacking in a sense of tension or stakes - the only urgency is created indirectly by the need to "race" the other player.
3. I haven't played enough games to be sure of this, but the game feels like it still has some balance issues. The quests you draw seem to have a huge influence on how likely you are to win - in our last game, I completed two twelve-point and one sixteen point quest while Enclave996 only ever saw 8-point quests, making it almost impossible for him to win. Particularly as the more valuable quests didn't seem to be significantly more difficult to complete than the cheaper quests. The second balance issue is with the characters. Again, I haven't played enough to be sure of this, but of the two characters I've played as (Dandelion and Yarpen), Yarpen seemed to have a definite advantage. Both need to power up cards that they bring into battle to assist them, but while Dandelion's "special" action generates two coins (and thus two power-ups), Yarpen generates two power-ups AND has the option of an almost-guaranteed investigation token, or money, or moving a curse flag. Admittedly, Dandelion has the advantage that he can power up his cards without spending an action IF he can find an alternate source of money, but so far I haven't found a reliable way of doing so, so on the whole I'm tempted to say that Yarpen's ability is just better. Again, though, more plays are needed to say for sure.
4. The music is too loud and rather repetitive. A volume slider would be appreciated - as is, I'm just playing the game on mute.
5. When selecting your first quest, the button that allows you to look at your character's details (including the "exchange rate" for investigation tokens -> proof) doesn't seem to be accessible. This is a problem for new players - if you don't know or can't remember your character's "exchange rates", it will be harder to compare the quests to know which ones will be easier for you to complete.
Some comments on the game so far:
1. Unless there are some mechanisms for player interaction that I haven't discovered yet, the game is essentially multiplayer solitaire, with the only significant effect of the other player being that you have to "race" them to the finish (so basically, they just serve to put a "clock" on your own gameplay). I've only played 2-player games so far, but it doesn't seem like adding a 3rd or 4th player would affect the game much other than to increase downtime between turns.
Multiplayer solitaire games can sometimes work, but almost all the good ones involve players taking their actions simultaneously so as to minimize downtime (e.g. Race for the Galaxy) or alternating micro-turns very quickly (e.g. Dominion) - and even then, your actions have at least some impact on other players, even if it's just denying them access to resources.
In my opinion, this game would benefit greatly from some sort of cooperative gameplay mechanic (competitive mechanics don't really make sense given the theme). As an example of a game that handles this sort of thing relatively well, I would point you towards "Legendary - The Marvel Deckbuilding Game". Each player drafts cards into their deck from a common pool, so the players have to plan together to make sure that everyone is getting cards that synergize well and that multiple players aren't competing too heavily for the same card types. The players then have to cooperate to deal with threats that, if left unchallenged, will harm all of them and will eventually lead to everyone losing - but at the same time, players earn victory points for the various heroic deeds they perform, and the player with the most points at the end is the winner, thereby preserving both competitive and cooperative elements.
So my suggestion would be to add some kind of "players against the board" system where events and monsters will eventually start to harm the players if not dealt with. Players can still earn VP for addressing these common threats, but are forced to cooperate to manage them to prevent game-over. This would also allow you to diversify the different characters' powers more - it currently feels like everyone just has different ways of getting good at combat, but with a diversity of threats you could have specialized problems that a certain character is better at dealing with than the others.
If you're willing to consider major mechanics overhauls, you might also want to look at the way actions are selected in "multiplayer solitaire" games like Race for the Galaxy and Puerto Rico. In these games, when a player selects an action, all players perform that action, but the player who picked it gets a slight "perk" - optionally, other players may then be unable to select that same action in the same round. This reduces downtime while simultaneously increasing player interaction and strategy (because you can indirectly inconvenience your opponents by choosing an action that benefits you more than them).
2. The game feels much too easy thus far. Players can start pulling their best cards out of the "Development" pool immediately, meaning that after a few turns of developing and charging up, combat against all but the toughest opponents becomes so trivial that it's almost yawn-worthy. Another negative effect of this is that the players draft all their coolest cards right at the start, and then get progressively less interesting card choices as the game plays on. You want the progression curve to go in the other direction - the player should have a constant sense of building up and becoming more and more powerful, not a huge initial spike in power followed by diminishing returns for the rest of the game. Overall, the game is sorely lacking in a sense of tension or stakes - the only urgency is created indirectly by the need to "race" the other player.
3. I haven't played enough games to be sure of this, but the game feels like it still has some balance issues. The quests you draw seem to have a huge influence on how likely you are to win - in our last game, I completed two twelve-point and one sixteen point quest while Enclave996 only ever saw 8-point quests, making it almost impossible for him to win. Particularly as the more valuable quests didn't seem to be significantly more difficult to complete than the cheaper quests. The second balance issue is with the characters. Again, I haven't played enough to be sure of this, but of the two characters I've played as (Dandelion and Yarpen), Yarpen seemed to have a definite advantage. Both need to power up cards that they bring into battle to assist them, but while Dandelion's "special" action generates two coins (and thus two power-ups), Yarpen generates two power-ups AND has the option of an almost-guaranteed investigation token, or money, or moving a curse flag. Admittedly, Dandelion has the advantage that he can power up his cards without spending an action IF he can find an alternate source of money, but so far I haven't found a reliable way of doing so, so on the whole I'm tempted to say that Yarpen's ability is just better. Again, though, more plays are needed to say for sure.
4. The music is too loud and rather repetitive. A volume slider would be appreciated - as is, I'm just playing the game on mute.
5. When selecting your first quest, the button that allows you to look at your character's details (including the "exchange rate" for investigation tokens -> proof) doesn't seem to be accessible. This is a problem for new players - if you don't know or can't remember your character's "exchange rates", it will be harder to compare the quests to know which ones will be easier for you to complete.
Last edited:
found a few minor bugs.
1 - on the dandelion quest "at your command" the subquest is to spend 3 purple leads to try to find out what the queen wants, but when the card is minimized to the bottom of the screen it shows as 2 purple leads.
2 - one of the investigation cards has a mechanics issue.
- i think it was a purple one, but it might have been blue. not sure of the name, didn't pay attention to the name and with no way to look at prior actions cant check.
- the card reads something like "spend 1 oren. if you are dandelion spend 2 additional orens, then draw and resolve a (color) investigation card"
- I was dandelion, I had only two orens. it took the first oren, but because i only had 1 more oren instead of two it did not take it. if the player does not have the full amount it should either:
-take the part the player has
OR
not provide the follow up development card as the requirements are not met, in which case it should refund the 1 oren it did take.
This is actually an interesting point that should be applied more broadly. in the event that an investigation card requires you to do something, if the player cannot do it the action (investigate) should end without proceeding to the next step or giving a reward perhaps.
1 - on the dandelion quest "at your command" the subquest is to spend 3 purple leads to try to find out what the queen wants, but when the card is minimized to the bottom of the screen it shows as 2 purple leads.
2 - one of the investigation cards has a mechanics issue.
- i think it was a purple one, but it might have been blue. not sure of the name, didn't pay attention to the name and with no way to look at prior actions cant check.
- the card reads something like "spend 1 oren. if you are dandelion spend 2 additional orens, then draw and resolve a (color) investigation card"
- I was dandelion, I had only two orens. it took the first oren, but because i only had 1 more oren instead of two it did not take it. if the player does not have the full amount it should either:
-take the part the player has
OR
not provide the follow up development card as the requirements are not met, in which case it should refund the 1 oren it did take.
This is actually an interesting point that should be applied more broadly. in the event that an investigation card requires you to do something, if the player cannot do it the action (investigate) should end without proceeding to the next step or giving a reward perhaps.
All the characters have different exchange rates for leads and proof. For example, Triss can change 3 blue leads for 1 blue proof, so gathering 2 blue proof for her counts as easy, while she has to collect 7 red leads for 1 red proof and 5 purple leads for 1 purple proof (if I remember the numbers correctly), so if she has to complete a quest where she has to collect any of the latter ones, that is a little more difficult for her, i.e. worth more VPs.
I'm amazed at how few people mention the completely broken "1 quest" gameplay... I stopped playing 1 quest because it is pointless. If you get an 8VP quest and plot a course to get to the goals as fast as possible, taking wounds along without caring, you can win 95% of the time unless all players are aware of this and try to do the same. I have literally won games in 5 turns. There is zero reason to finish any sidequests and there is no reason to develop your character. You just run as fast as possible to collect your main quest requirements.
The usual move is TRAVEL {or FAST TRAVEL} and INVESTIGATE. Each turn until you win. This mode is completely pointless and has no real strategy. It's just based on luck.
The usual move is TRAVEL {or FAST TRAVEL} and INVESTIGATE. Each turn until you win. This mode is completely pointless and has no real strategy. It's just based on luck.
YES! YES! and YES! (and yes! too), my topic is about this point: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/31030-Quest-goal
now every time I'm forced (yes, because one player choosing 1 quest makes a 1 quest goal, even if the 3 others choose 3 quests or 5) to play a 1 quest goal, I know it will be with a player who don't want to talk and who will rush his goal, this is not the kind of game (boardgame) I supposed to find...
fortunately, I've found some people who was ok to share skype contact in order to play (play, not win).
please! do something! (maybe just tell us that you read us, it could be a good start
)No, you probably just don't kill them and then have to fight them again next turn
To kill a monster, you must match the number of swords needed in your dice roll.
I noticed weird thing regarding Activity tab. In private game it shows me name of the card other player draws, and I can click on it and it shows me what it says and stuff. In public game that I just finished, it only shows me results of the actions. For example shows me how many clues/proofs he/she received, where monsters spawned etc. Is this how it should be or is it a bug?
And I do not know if this is topic for suggestions or not, but I will post two things here:
- It would be nice good if person setting up a game could decide few things such as: number of players, and number of quests, and other players could also specify this and the matchmaking could match them. Or show list of possible games
- Also there should be possibility to look at own and other players card at any time of the game
And I do not know if this is topic for suggestions or not, but I will post two things here:
- It would be nice good if person setting up a game could decide few things such as: number of players, and number of quests, and other players could also specify this and the matchmaking could match them. Or show list of possible games
- Also there should be possibility to look at own and other players card at any time of the game
Developers! Thank you for the game log! It's really cool! And for the nice congratulation button.
Can you please add one usefull thing like "one page rules". A control (in the game menu) that opens a window with short version of game rules. It will be very helpfull for new players.
Thank you for your work!
Can you please add one usefull thing like "one page rules". A control (in the game menu) that opens a window with short version of game rules. It will be very helpfull for new players.
Thank you for your work!
The log is a nice addition and the tutorial is improved as well. Thanks for the updates.
I am wondering, if game devs are taking data regarding number of won games by each character? Because I think that game-balance might not be right.
So far from games I played, I see that Geralt is very powerfull character. Without developments, he may won most battles, and as soon as he gots medallion and few signs, he easily beats anything that is not 5:5. Also, if he has his development he do not need to use Brew, as medallion and huge number of dices lets him to win fights. And he have more free moves to use investigation, compared to other (especially Tris, who prepare only 1 spell). So he is great character both for short and long games.
On the other hand Triss is quite powerful in mid-games. Her spells are quite strong and one you take them they are already charged. But in game for 1 quest, she lacks pure strenght of Geralt (like every other character). In longer games preparing 1 only one spell might take the toll. When fighting strongest monsters, she have to rely on her amulet. In fact without it, she is not as strong.
I barely played Yarpen, but what I saw is that him winning 1 quest game is barely possible. Simply because person who wins that is mostly the one who finishes first. And he needs about 1-2 more turns for this, purely because he needs 4 clues instead of 3 to get proof.
Dandelion, on start he is very week, and needs to get his development cards, with which he can be very powerful character, and easily win fights. But he needs money to that and use Sing from time to time. So he is average for short games, and quite strong for long ones.
So far from games I played, I see that Geralt is very powerfull character. Without developments, he may won most battles, and as soon as he gots medallion and few signs, he easily beats anything that is not 5:5. Also, if he has his development he do not need to use Brew, as medallion and huge number of dices lets him to win fights. And he have more free moves to use investigation, compared to other (especially Tris, who prepare only 1 spell). So he is great character both for short and long games.
On the other hand Triss is quite powerful in mid-games. Her spells are quite strong and one you take them they are already charged. But in game for 1 quest, she lacks pure strenght of Geralt (like every other character). In longer games preparing 1 only one spell might take the toll. When fighting strongest monsters, she have to rely on her amulet. In fact without it, she is not as strong.
I barely played Yarpen, but what I saw is that him winning 1 quest game is barely possible. Simply because person who wins that is mostly the one who finishes first. And he needs about 1-2 more turns for this, purely because he needs 4 clues instead of 3 to get proof.
Dandelion, on start he is very week, and needs to get his development cards, with which he can be very powerful character, and easily win fights. But he needs money to that and use Sing from time to time. So he is average for short games, and quite strong for long ones.