- Status
Burza46;n10918472 said:
I apreciate the honesty.
But by the gods, what terrible news.
All my hype is gone.
I'm not voting just yet. For now, my opinion is that 2 rows that actually matter something is much better then 3 that don't (comparing to the game state right now). So as I see it, it might be an improvement. Also it gives them room to show more of their art and to add more cool animations and effects, that I'm fond off. All in all, I still have faith it will be good in the end.
I'm a bit torn between having 3 rows with smallish cards or 2 rows with bigger cards. Also I can't tell if 3 rows is actually better then 2, since I haven't seen exactly what they are up to.
I'm a bit torn between having 3 rows with smallish cards or 2 rows with bigger cards. Also I can't tell if 3 rows is actually better then 2, since I haven't seen exactly what they are up to.
Isnt it the wrong way of thinking? You compare two different aspecs. Why not 3 rows that matter? There were a lot of suggestions in the past for it. CDRed dont even say they choose this path because of balancing, they just wanted it for cosmetic reasons...Theodrik;n10919288 said:
Last edited:
This is really happening? Wow burza I'm speechless. Removing a row is the least homecoming thing you can do. This has to be so it can release on mobile. I can't ever excited how disappointed I am about this news. How can one game blow my mind in so many wrong ways.
Personally I don't think removing one row will be that catastrophic as a lot of people see it, though I would also prefer to keep all 3. (Although while I wasn't around in the pre-agile era, I also find cards having fixed/preferred rows a bad idea as I fail to see how limiting your ability to play around certain cards makes the game more deep or strategic.)
Yet I find this development worrisome, because now they seem to spend significant efforts (card reworking, testing) on a change nobody in the community asked for.
I wholeheartedly support most goals that Homecoming have set (Focusing on skill and player agency, Fixing the coin mechanic, etc.) and was indifferent towards the rest. But I realized even right when the announcement came that it would take a lot of effort to achieve these goals in just 6 months and complete everything in proper quality seemed overly optimistic.
Seeing them spending their resources on things that have nothing to do with the goals I find important just doesn't make me more hopeful.
Yet I find this development worrisome, because now they seem to spend significant efforts (card reworking, testing) on a change nobody in the community asked for.
I wholeheartedly support most goals that Homecoming have set (Focusing on skill and player agency, Fixing the coin mechanic, etc.) and was indifferent towards the rest. But I realized even right when the announcement came that it would take a lot of effort to achieve these goals in just 6 months and complete everything in proper quality seemed overly optimistic.
Seeing them spending their resources on things that have nothing to do with the goals I find important just doesn't make me more hopeful.
time_drainer;n10919621 said:
Fixed rows did make the game more strategic because when you played certain cards became more important, as did deck design in general.
There were plenty of instances in CB, for example, where you had to think about whether playing that one extra range card on a row with three others on that row was a good idea in a round. When every card is agile this choice disappears. You can put that fourth card anywhere and likely get all of the benefit. The play around ability came from making an educated decision (based on opponent deck type, likely cards carried in that deck, cards played, etc.) on whether you were going to get punished for playing that fourth range card or not. This did add an element of skill to the game. Better players would know to hold onto the card that would punish you for throwing an extra range unit out there until you did it, or split up their range cards across several rounds to prevent it, or hold the range unit until the card that was going to punish them was played, etc.
In terms of deck design, it should be quite clear how that was different. You couldn't mindlessly pick out all of the "best" cards and shove them into a deck. You had to balance your rows, to some extent, as stacking all range/melee/siege cards would spell doom against certain decks or cards. You couldn't stack a single weather type and play it anywhere. The list goes on.... While this may limit deck design it provided structure to the game. It also meant certain cards that might be lacking in some areas were still valid choices in the right circumstances. Whereas now they're just "bad cards".
time_drainer;n10919621 said:
This sums up my feelings on it exactly. It's another example of a completely unnecessary change, with a completely new set of design/balance ramifications, getting shoved into the game to simplify it. Attaching it to "Homecoming" seems out of place. "Hey guys, we're taking Gwent back to it's roots. Oh, and by the way, we're taking one of the rows out.". Eh, yeah.....
Thunderscape;n10919243 said:
To be quite frank, until you try it and see that it works it might scare off a bit. We had similar groundbreaking changes come into the game, which were scary but overall made GWENT better. Please bear in mind that gameplay wise the game will also change quite substantially and this will play into the two rows.
Burza46;n10919675 said:
Like making every unit agile, which lead to rows feeling so meaningless in the first place?
It's an odd statement considering you're doing a game rework, because you messed it up.
So, you want to introduce a major a change (bigger than all other changes so far), which basically nobody asked for, for reasons we still don't really know, without allowing players to test it, because when we can test Gwent HC, it'll be too late to go back? Why is the project even called homecoming if you're doing something completely different?
Last edited:
Burza46;n10919675 said:
This must mean that you've had to change the Weather (Hazard) Mechanic once more, no? Also the row limit... and more... but the Weather Mechanic is something that really interests me, cause I think it finally had settled into something that is not oppressing and actually a bit underpowered (lack of competitive support units).
BornBoring;n10919696 said:
You'll be able to test the changes and we'll be updating you on what we're working on and what changes we're planning to introduce, this should provide more clarity as to what we are changing and most importantly why. Homecoming lets us implement things we wanted to introduce in the beginning it also entails the game going back to The Witcher aesthetics.
Burza46;n10919720 said:
Let me be more precise: If we test it and the majority of player still thinks that cutting a row was a bad idea, what would happen? Would there still be time to go back to three rows or would it be too late?
BornBoring;n10919696 said:
We all got a bit carried away. It's CDPRs' project and they can choose whether to listen to community or not. And Burza is a messenger, not a decider. This post show what is the stand of 200 people, not entire community. Everyone relax.
BornBoring;n10919738 said:
Too early to say, we have to wait and see. I'm personally not a fan of "what ifs". We have 6 months to make a awesome and complete game and that is the priority, the changes are extensive and everyone on the development team is working hard on delivering something new, competitive and fresh. We will be updating the community on the developments.
Name one. Normally you dont make gwent better you just choose the easiest way out of trouble. You startet with Gwent and will end it with something other.Burza46;n10919675 said:
- Status