Patches Need to be More Frequent (1 month balance patches)

+
Patches Need to be More Frequent (1 month balance patches)

It has been one month since the last patch and the game has already grown very stale. If the game was launched we would be expecting a whole additional month before the next balancing patch. This seems like a very long time to wait. Every time the game gets boring and players stop playing it until the next update there is an increasing chance that they will not return to Gwent. I think it is necessary to switch from a 2 month balance patch cycle to a 1 month cycle to keep the game fresh.

It would be fine to still only release 20 new cards on every other patch, but CCG's in general are in desperate need of the meta being stirred up frequently or they grow stagnant. Being able to adjust the game after adding 20 cards would be beneficial. Adding 20 cards, then trying to balance the game 2 months later while adding 20 more cards sounds like asking for trouble.

Upcoming patches is something that we as a community all look forward to and renews our interest in the game. Being left in this mid patch limbo with no information as to what direction the game we all love is going while redundantly complaining about the same problematic game elements is just painful. Having a one month balance patch, without new content, to make the game more healthy would be a great decision from my perspective.

Pretty sure if I wake up tomorrow and at the top of the news page is still the PS4 announcement I'm just going to break into tears. I'm so ready for a meta change.
 
When CDPR releases a patch that will change Gwent significantly, like the positioning patch, then that is something you don't want to rush. As long as the devs are not happy with the state of the game, they will keep releasing major patches and those take time. I think that once open beta starts, the patches will be smaller and more frequent, only tweaking a few things left and right, instead of a complete overhaul.
 
4RM3D;n8429370 said:
When CDPR releases a patch that will change Gwent significantly, like the positioning patch, then that is something you don't want to rush. As long as the devs are not happy with the state of the game, they will keep releasing major patches and those take time. I think that once open beta starts, the patches will be smaller and more frequent, only tweaking a few things left and right, instead of a complete overhaul.

Agreed, the current patches are definitely too complex to push out on a monthly basis and expect them to be successful. CDPR has been very open in the past about their intention to have 2 month patch/season cycles after release which will re-balance the game and introduce 20 new cards each time. I think this approach will be harmful to the game because of the long interval between patches. We can see already from our limited time in the beta how quickly the game becomes stagnant. Re-balancing between each of these content patches would address the issue and keep people from getting bored and wandering off.

For now in the beta it is totally acceptable to take time between game changing updates; I'm just worried about once the game is fully launched. 2 months is a long time to wait for simple adjustments to problem cards like Vrihedd Dragoon that just need a small value adjustment while they work out a more sustainable solution. We got a taste of this with the Henselt adjustment, but I'd love to see these mini patches mid season once the problem cards have become apparent.
 
Hello

In my experience, it is very possible that devs will patch a game broken, if they react to any complain wich comes up.
For Example: They bring out a Expension with new Cards, you are starting experimenting a bit, finally build a Deck wich workes pretty well and as soon you have all Cards needed by buying and milling, they come up with a nerf for your Keycards wich makes the whole Key-Strategy or eaven a whole Faction sided New Set of Cards completely worthless.

This is exactly what happened to me before.
Ive made a Thread to share my new Deck and 2 Days after (A bit more then 2 Weeks after Expansion-Release) Devs came up with a Nerf.
Thats why ive stopped publishing my Decks in public...

By the way it wasnt even an extremly Powerfull Deck, but a very stong counter to another Faction wich was seamingly supposed to be the new "Everyones Favorite" Strategy (Got new Game Mechanics, wich was the major sellpoint for the new Extension). Thats why it got nerfed. Fair? NO >.>

Lession?
Tell Shit about what you are actually playing and keep your best ideas for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Competitors bring out a new expansion every six months or so, with minimal patches in between. 2 months is definitely not that long to wait. The trouble is right now the game feels so stale because of the lack of options - not that many cards, not too many effects, not many modes, etc. Now we are in closed beta it seems the best time to start fiddling with everything I'd prefer to see a balance patch every week or so, just to nerf overpowered cards, buff up weaker ones, maybe release a card or two if they are ready. Now is the time for CDPR to see what works. When it comes to open beta and release, 2 months is a perfectly fine length of time, as long as nothing is completely broken.
 
Sapphyxus;n8433560 said:
<rant> Vicavaro medic should only rez a random unit from an opponent's graveyard </rant>
Yeah let's kick nilfgaard in the nuts while they are still down half dead. Nilfgaard is in the bottom of the meta, if anything they need to buff stuff, not nerf it.
 
DMaster2;n8433620 said:
Yeah let's kick nilfgaard in the nuts while they are still down half dead. Nilfgaard is in the bottom of the meta, if anything they need to buff stuff, not nerf it.

No kidding, I can't even raise silvers with this damn card, please don't make me rely on RNG! :p
 
Perhaps they are just trying to be really careful with how they move things forward. What Skippy said is certainly true...

SkippyHole;n8433270 said:
not that many cards, not too many effects, not many modes, etc.

But man, what a crazy myriad of possibilities there are that exist within those limited options, this game could really become something pretty amazing and here we are in it's infancy watching it take its first little steps. I do hope that fear of messing up the wonderfully cohesive game mechanics does not frighten things into a perpetual stasis.

Certainly if the game is to become great it must evolve and grow beyond this point so things do need to move forward, even if it is at the risk of our fledgling little toddler fudging it's diapers here and there because all we gotta do when that happens is wipe it's ass and throw on a different kind of diapey and see where things go from there.

Metaphor taken way to far? Prolly should of dropped it way earlier. Either way it will be interesting to see how things play out.

 
We don't need arbitrary patches just for the sake of it. The meta is still sorting itself out and evolving as we speak, with several new decks making a splash at top level (see: http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/17050-new-meta-skellige / http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/17017-4800-mmr-antimeta-weather-vriheed-control / several Radovid archetypes / Calveit spies).

We could use faster adjustments in some cases (the Henselt change being a case in point), but other than that I would prefer the devs to err on the side of caution rather than rush out balance changes before the meta has even fully developed.
 
Dennis Cranmer... well I'll be. I'm impressed.

But yes, totally second what Nimraphel said, there's so much room for innovation and experimentation that people aren't seeing because they think the meta is stale. Rushing helps no one, and it certainly doesn't help the game.
 
Top Bottom