2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]

+

2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]


  • Total voters
    339
Status
Not open for further replies.
lakired;n10924757 said:
Simply removing a row is only going to limit strategic potential. However, there are ways it can be done that could potentially mitigate this. Two suggestions I've seen and will echo here are 1) five rows, with the melee row being shared, and 2) four rows split down the center with the introduction of 'flanks', essentially adding two additional "rows."

Both I think could actually IMPROVE upon the current six row model, while slimming the board down.

I think a shared melee row could be cool. However that would require a deeper game and we all know the game will continue to be casualized. Midwinter was one step to casual with reducing the name lengths for future mobile false. now homecoming is step two. We know the main reason is must likely mobile casual $. the hard core fan's are just not enough, you have to try something drastic and it looks like the simplified 2 rows is just that, headstone is familiar to kids, so they will naturally want to play a copy?. Very sad. I know that you guys can keep backups of the game to revert to. So how about we just make two row Gwent a game mode and you guys can keep current Gwent updated with preferred rows, adult content, less rpg as a mode for us if we don't take kindly to homecoming. Honestly what is going back to the games roots if it loses its identity in the process? I know you have to keep casuals interested but if you lose your core players the casuals will just move into the next flavor of the week ccg.
 
If you remove a row you'll have alot more rewrks to do, not to mention dropping the duplicate card cap from 3 to 2.
 
I hope CDPR takes this poll for what it is worth, showing that a large part of the community has serious concerns with it. But for more than showing a vague mood that poll isn't usefull.

The poll has basically only 1 option, because hardly anyone in their right mind would vote for 2. It were the same as showing someone 3 popsicles and asking him do you want 3 or 2? So, why should anyone choose the 2?
What we don't know in both cases is, how will those 2 look like. Are they the same, or are they different and in which way. Therefore it is already remarkable that 19 people voted 2 rows without any information.

To give this poll a meaning, the better second option would have been: "CDPR should try out if 2 rows are a good idea in my opinion.", which is the option raised of the other large group writing in this thread besides those who are against it. And this option would also reflect CDPR current goal on this matter. They haven't stated that they will include 2 rows in the final product, but that they are testing it and considering it. What is the worth of a poll, where even the devellopers wouldn't vote for option 2?

If we look at the opinions in this thread, we can see that on the first days the number of users with the opinion "bad idea" were about as many as those that said "it can only be said after trying it out". And over the whole thread we get about 60% "bad idea" and 40% "trying it out" opinions. This decline is to a certain point likely due to the fact that stronger opions are more likely to be voiced and "bad idea" is a lot stronger then the other one.


Thus CDPR, please take from this topic that a lot of users are seriously concerned about the removal of one row and consider the arguments in both directions.
And at least I will wait until you have shown me what you have exactly done with 2 rows, until I will form my opinion.
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
FG15-ISH7EG;n10947671 said:
If we look at the opinions in this thread, we can see that on the first days the number of users with the opinion "bad idea" were about as many as those that said "it can only be said after trying it out".

I have to disagree with this point. The ratio was 90+ to 10- from day one. BUT. Its been voiced out by 200 people only (compared to 7K views its nothing). I agree that most people are withholding their opinion and don't really want to vote for 2 row gwent.

I'd like to encourage people who agree with 2 row gwent idea to speak out.
 
Many people these days can't think for themselves and need group think in order to form an opinion. Once cdpr said we are removing a row many people switched their vote to 2 row Gwent. There was only a couple people who voted two rows ibn the beginning. Two rows will be final and if it doesn't work I don't think we are getting homecoming volume 2. They have do it it right and I hope I'm proved wrong. us complaining means nothing.
 
Mancoon1980

Users are too quick to condemn CDPR for their design decisions in Gwent. It depends on the reasoning behind these complaints whether or not their are valid. A lot of players are against removing a row just because it makes the game less "Gwent-like". However, that's a fallacy. The original Gwent was never meant to become a CCG and using that concept alone will lead the game into an early grave. As such, CDPR does need to deviate from the concepts that make Gwent, well, Gwent.

That does not mean the Create mechanic was needed because that didn't to anything to improve the game. But, for example, weather did need to be reworked. I don't mind when Gwent turns into something else, as long as the gameplay and balance are solid. Now, the question is, why does a row need to be removed in the first place? Or to put it differently, how will that improve the game? In the end, we'll just have to wait and see what the impact is of removing one row (and reworking a lot of cards because of it).
 
Last edited:
4RM3D;n10947977 said:
In the end, we'll just have to wait and see what the impact is of removing one row
Disagree with this passive approach. Not only because of how CDPR was unable to make a great game out of 6 rows, and instead chose to go in the wrong direction. But as well because already at this point, not knowing how 4 rows Gwent will be exactly, we can know a lot just by using our common sense. It's been confirmed by devs that there are no plans to split the 4 rows vertically for example, that's another indication of potential and very likely loss of complexity and depth 4 rows will bring with it.

Just always remember this: The potential of 6 rows Gwent will always be greater than the potential for 4 rows Gwent. If devs were serious about making a complex and fun game, they would never have gone with 4 rows, but instead would have improved on the 6 rows (if you want bigger cards, 5 rows Gwent could work maybe even better than 6, and be a solution to that issue).
 
Udalryk;n10948046 said:
The potential of 6 rows Gwent will always be greater than the potential for 4 rows Gwent.

By that logic, we should give Gwent as many rows as you can possibly fit on the screen and we will get a Godlike game. I do not believe that it will increase the potential, though, but even if it did, I rather see CDPR doing 4 rows good, than 6 rows poorly. Anyhow, CDPR just needs to make a good CCG, no matter if it's 6 rows, 4 rows or even only 2 rows. Now, I am not particularly looking forward to only having 4 rows, but I still have some faith that Homecoming will fix the most crucial issues.
 
4RM3D;n10948484 said:
By that logic, we should give Gwent as many rows as you can possibly fit on the screen and we will get a Godlike game. I do not believe that it will increase the potential, though, but even if it did, I rather see CDPR doing 4 rows good, than 6 rows poorly. Anyhow, CDPR just needs to make a good CCG, no matter if it's 6 rows, 4 rows or even only 2 rows. Now, I am not particularly looking forward to only having 4 rows, but I still have some faith that Homecoming will fix the most crucial issues.

The game first appear on the witcher 3. In video game format.
It had 3 rows.

You play cards with abilities, no mana, 3 rounds, player with most points win.
Thats gwent. You can make a good card game with one row. Thats beside the point.


Its impossible while keeping the same mechanics that make gwent the game it is, with one less row to be more complex.

Can you make chess more complex with 2 columns less? While keeping the same rules and the same gameplay?



You could also make chess more complex with more columns sure but why? To what end? Does it have an audience?

People like chess how it is. Would you play a chess game with less columns on a mobile phone in order to see big chess pieces?


Thats the problem. Will it still be gwent?
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
4RM3D;n10948484 said:
By that logic, we should give Gwent as many rows as you can possibly fit on the screen and we will get a Godlike game.

Absolutely! more complexity makes a game you want to return to! One that you would grow up with and only fully understand as an adult. And then play it with your own kids. You simply can't disagree with that.
 
Thunderscape;n10948529 said:
You could also make chess more complex with more columns sure but why? To what end? Does it have an audience?

Thunderscape;n10948529 said:
Would you play a chess game with less columns on a mobile phone in order to see big chess pieces?

Thats the problem. Will it still be gwent?

That's something I've already mentioned in a previous post. Gwent in the Witcher 3 was never meant to be a CCG. So, it was flawed from the start. The goal is not to keep the identity of Gwent, but rather to make a more balanced CCG. This means that certain mechanics need to be changed, like the weather, which, in its original form, could not work. As for the other changes... The removal of the gold immunity is debatable. Create was a bad design decision. Going to 4 rows is... dubious. However, without actually playing Homecoming, I'll reserve my judgement. I just hope that the change wasn't solely done because of the upcoming mobile version. Speaking of which, CDPR does have its priorities backwards. They should have focused on fixing the game, instead of releasing it on multiple platforms.
 
4RM3D;n10947977 said:
Users are too quick to condemn CDPR for their design decisions in Gwent.

Sorry pal, but they arent.

Considering what CDPR did with this game, they have to be be grateful that a part of the community even accepted homecoming with some positive thinking.

If this was any other game developer, people would condemn their design decisions even before they announce it, and to be honest, they would be totally right in doing so due to the past experiences.
 
Laveley;n10948598 said:
If this was any other game developer, people would condemn their design decisions even before they announce it, and to be honest, they would be totally right in doing so due to the past experiences.

And yet EA still... uhm, on second thought, let's not go there.

Laveley;n10948598 said:
Considering what CDPR did with this game, they have to be be grateful that a part of the community even accepted homecoming with some positive thinking.

No matter what any company does, there are always going to be users that will dislike the product of said company. Depending on their history, one could be more hopeful. In the case of CDPR, they did give us the Witcher. With Gwent, they traversed unknown territory and it's showing. Many of the complaints are valid, but the player's reaction towards those are not by mostly reacting disproportional.

Let's be honest here, Gwent attracts a different kind of crowd than the Witcher. Sure, there are plenty of users playing Gwent because of the Witcher 3, but there are many more playing because Gwent is suppose to be(come) a competitive CCG. With the competitive scene also comes more criticism. Gwent is already in a difficult spot, but it's made worse because now it has to please both the faithful Witcher fanbase and the new competitive players. This sets unrealistic expectations.

Does the 4-row-system removes part of the identity of Gwent? Yes. Does it make it a worse game? Too early to tell. Should we condemn it beforehand? No.
 
4RM3D;n10948619 said:
Does the 4-row-system removes part of the identity of Gwent? Yes. Does it make it a worse game? Too early to tell. Should we condemn it beforehand? No.

Yeah, i disagree with the last one though and i said why and, quite frankly, you didnt presented any relevant point on your commentary to sustain why people shouldnt condemn their design decisions beforehand when its clear they f* up many times before. They deserve to be condemned beforehand because nobody trust their design decisions anymore. Simple as that. You had to be a fool to trust CDPR on gwent design decisions by now. Sorry, but thats the truth.

Theres nothing disproportional here. They had a great game on hands. I'm one person that fits the two categories you cited and there was a time that i loved this game. Even with all the imbalances. Even with all the gamebreaking bugs of eithné + regis. And they screwed it. People are pissed. Specially the ones who spent money on it because they paid for something that simply doesnt exist anymore and now have to hope that the same people that screwed a great product that they loved to play come up with something good that, as we all know by now, will be inevitably different than what they payed for.

i know, i know. "it was beta, things change". so yeah, everybody shut up and dont condemn it beforehand because... what exactly?
 
Trying it out and seeing the results, or giving it a chance, is not a valid defense for a proposal to change an aspect of a game. At least, in the sense of wanting people to support the proposal. If your options are change aspect X or leave it alone you don't change aspect X and justify it with, "Well, we're going to give it a chance and see how it goes.". You make changes that make sense for reason X, Y or Z. It makes balance easier. It adds depth to game play. It improves some aspect of the game. Making a change to "try it out" is like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded.

It's possible the ramifications of a change cannot be fully understood until that change is put into effect and tested, sure. It's often the case. It's especially true when it's a major change, such as removing a third of the board in a CCG. This doesn't mean you cannot know whether it's most likely going to be an improvement or... the other thing. You can make an educated guess. This defense of, "How do you know it won't be more better if we do this? Give it a chance.", has become increasingly common. Not just in Gwent either. It's really code for, "We're doing this and you need to suck it up if you don't agree with it.". "How do you know it will improve the game? Don't do it.", is just as valid an argument. Both arguments are eerily similar to the common statement, "It is what it is.". It's, well, a pointless statement.

I think the reason 2 row Gwent raises so much backlash is because it's one of the few core mechanics that haven't had a revamp. Units tied to specific rows/agile, weather immunity, gold immunity, ambush, weather mechanics, the list goes on.... All of this stuff has been significantly changed over the course of the game. Whether these changes were individually or collectively an improvement is up for debate, I suppose. It's still a large change to just throw out there. Perhaps more concerning, it's not something you can reverse on a dime. The try it out argument conveniently omits this tidbit. How does that work? Homecoming hits, it's universally hated and we decide to go back to 3 row Gwent. What does that entail? Homecoming 2.0 with another lengthy wait with no updates to re-incorporate the poor, helpless, abandoned row? Rows have rights too.
 
Restlessdingo32;n10948652 said:
Trying it out and seeing the results, or giving it a chance, is not a valid defense for a proposal to change an aspect of a game. At least, in the sense of wanting people to support the proposal. If your options are change aspect X or leave it alone you don't change aspect X and justify it with, "Well, we're going to give it a chance and see how it goes.". You make changes that make sense for reason X, Y or Z. It makes balance easier. It adds depth to game play. It improves some aspect of the game. Making a change to "try it out" is like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded.

It's possible the ramifications of a change cannot be fully understood until that change is put into effect and tested, sure. It's often the case. It's especially true when it's a major change, such as removing a third of the board in a CCG. This doesn't mean you cannot know whether it's most likely going to be an improvement or... the other thing. You can make an educated guess. This defense of, "How do you know it won't be more better if we do this? Give it a chance.", has become increasingly common. Not just in Gwent either. It's really code for, "We're doing this and you need to suck it up if you don't agree with it.". "How do you know it will improve the game? Don't do it.", is just as valid an argument. Both arguments are eerily similar to the common statement, "It is what it is.". It's, well, a pointless statement.

I think the reason 2 row Gwent raises so much backlash is because it's one of the few core mechanics that haven't had a revamp. Units tied to specific rows/agile, weather immunity, gold immunity, ambush, weather mechanics, the list goes on.... All of this stuff has been significantly changed over the course of the game. Whether these changes were individually or collectively an improvement is up for debate, I suppose. It's still a large change to just throw out there. Perhaps more concerning, it's not something you can reverse on a dime. The try it out argument conveniently omits this tidbit. How does that work? Homecoming hits, it's universally hated and we decide to go back to 3 row Gwent. What does that entail? Homecoming 2.0 with another lengthy wait with no updates to re-incorporate the poor, helpless, abandoned row? Rows have rights too.

Couldnt agree more.

They already stated on homecoming that the fundamental reason why they are changing to 2 rows its to better show the "amazing card art" and overhaul the visual aspect of the game. And i do agree that the art is amazing but compromising such a great part of gameplay aspect and risk a shot in the dark that maybe hits the bullseye just doenst work for me.

I will condemn it beforehand because for me its a stupid, unnecessary decision. And if the developers already made some stupid and unnecessary decisions before than it just gets even worse.
 
Restlessdingo32;n10948652 said:
I think the reason 2 row Gwent raises so much backlash is because it's one of the few core mechanics that haven't had a revamp.
It could be the case. For some people it's maybe the only case. But i think there is more to it, it's the "just right" feeling of this design that suits how Gwent is played almost perfectly. That's the case for me anyway. Removing 2 rows would be like removing a lane in a MOBA, removing a wheel of a car, just taking something fully functioning with great potential, and amputate it for no good reason.
It might seem paradoxical that I like 5 rows Gwent instead of 6, but that's because that would actually add to the complexity and depth, since the Melee row is shared and has friendly fire (think about Golden weather, aoe effects, etc), where it makes sense to add Range indicators to cards, as well as Preferred rows, where you can still play in all 3 rows. I can't begin to imagine how 4 rows would achieve something remotely similar to this. (link to Gwent5 for reference)
 
Last edited:
if they did remove a row they would definitely need to rework swarm decks and how many cards can be placed per row.

Some decks can fill all rows in long rounds.

9 cards is the limit per row.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom