What infuriates me the most is that when HC will go live, gwent will be in beta for almost 2 years. Given the absurd amount of fundamental changes they're planning, the game will require a new several months long beta testing phase.
Lets be real about it: it will be a whole different game with all the testing time requirements necessary. Almost feels that these last year and half have been for nothing. After all this time, we're going to be back to square one.
What I expected was a reworking on some troublesome aspects of the game, some of which have been identified for a LONG time by the community (such as coinflip, irrelevant rows, lack of faction identity, create mechanic, card advantage abuse, and a few others), launching the SP campaign and integrating some aspects of it in the multiplayer and that was it. Surely you dont need to mess around so much and change so many integral parts of a game in order to fix these issues. And worse, leaving it as it is for 5 months. Their rational its beyond me.
Lets be real about it: it will be a whole different game with all the testing time requirements necessary. Almost feels that these last year and half have been for nothing. After all this time, we're going to be back to square one.
What I expected was a reworking on some troublesome aspects of the game, some of which have been identified for a LONG time by the community (such as coinflip, irrelevant rows, lack of faction identity, create mechanic, card advantage abuse, and a few others), launching the SP campaign and integrating some aspects of it in the multiplayer and that was it. Surely you dont need to mess around so much and change so many integral parts of a game in order to fix these issues. And worse, leaving it as it is for 5 months. Their rational its beyond me.
Last edited:
Pruny;n10958471 said:
I think it reaches a point where it doesn't matter how many points the spy has, there will be new abuses and the higher the points the bigger the swings.
I reached a point where i truly hate spies and how they're used now however i don't see how the game would work without them, the only insight we have no is arena and it's usually a one round game.
Venendal, Spear, Shield and Spotters would become crazy. And even if those were restricted to loyal units, Spies would still be the ultimate Scorch protection. Giving spies too much base power could cause a lot of other problems.Pruny;n10958471 said:
Udalryk;n10958492 said:
This is a good idea.
Mine was, they do have a timer now. Why no keep them at 13 or 14 and make them draw you the card after your opponent's turn, if he didn't passed, destroyed or locked them? Furthermore, if you lock them they must lose their initial "Draw a card" token and become useless. This will make them so much hard and risky to use, will also revive the Silver Locks. Tons of opportunities.
But whatever, their sentence was pronounced. I will actually not gonna miss them.
What I'll miss is most likely Gwent...
There is a good solution to this. Make spies 12 and then boost them to the desired power when deploying. Make them Immune as well, to avoid other issues. But yeah, having these high point units on the board is still not ideal. It could work if they get complete immunity from any damage. At this point it's just better to add points directly to the score instead, fixing even more problems.FG15-ISH7EG;n10958555 said:
Or both, having them 6 power with ability to add additional 12 uninteractable points to opponent's score.
Last edited:
ser2440;n10958345 said:
Apparently bigger card art is more important than gameplay. Go figure...
Not sure I like the idea of no restrictions on Golds/Silvers. I know they're replacing the number limit to some sort of other value but that's gonna crate a crapload of balance issues. Hope you guys are keeping on top of them all. Not sure it's a good idea for what's Gwent's last chance.
Last edited:
I'm curious to see how it will play out when the Homecoming update is finally released.
My preference would have been to work with what we have and improve on that. Changing the game so much (once again) is definitely risky and I do understand why people dedicated to Gwent are worried about it. However, I don't know the full vision yet. Maybe all of these possible changes (it's still work in progress) are for the best - time will tell. I definitely need to see something playable first to really know how I feel about it. We'll see!
I just hope that Gwent will keep its own identity and not move too close to typical CCG's.
My preference would have been to work with what we have and improve on that. Changing the game so much (once again) is definitely risky and I do understand why people dedicated to Gwent are worried about it. However, I don't know the full vision yet. Maybe all of these possible changes (it's still work in progress) are for the best - time will tell. I definitely need to see something playable first to really know how I feel about it. We'll see!
I just hope that Gwent will keep its own identity and not move too close to typical CCG's.
From a player who has literally just made a GoG account to express this opinion, I hope a lengthy enough comment is something at least. At least here my opinion may actually be heard, as oppose to the numerous of other minor forums I usually prefer to frequent (since I mostly dislike the idea of contesting a person attached to post; I prefer to contest the opinions within a post itself, regardless of user). See this as a sign in its own right to the respect I already give regarding CDPR; since if this was ActiBlizz/ Ubisoft (etc) I know for a fact I would simply be screaming into the abyss as usual.
I am heavily disheartened at the prospect of 2 rows. For 2 major reasons-Design and (possible) Impact;
DESIGN
Gwent is by nature not a 2 row game. Gwent is a minigame from the Witcher 3; who had a very few rules and mechanics. The standalone has mostly built upon this idea in every way, with almost every single mechanic being preserved in the game bar Faction Abilities (a change I was not happy to see go in its own right a year ago yesterday, but alas). In total; Muster, Agility, Tight Bond (in a more balanced form of Reaver Hunters), Immunity (albeit only on Arachas Queen/Werewolves with no immunity to Scorch), Weather, Decoy, Spies, Scorch, Resilience - everything is here and present. Yet the idea of removing a row fundamentally contrasts this.
Imagine the Gwent standalone as a house contract (fitting, with the name of the Homecoming update). At the bare minimum, everybody wants a 3 story detached house, with a few bits of furniture guaranteed. One can add as many pieces of extra furniture, as many paintings, as many detailed intricacies, remodel the entire floor plan if you want- as long as it is a 3 story house with the given furniture. Making the house into a 2 storey bungalow may be abjectly better in every way shape and form; it may be cheaper, more efficient and allow for more costs to go into more beautiful furniture; but at the end of the day it is useless, since it is fundamentally not what the initial ask was. It would get rejected immediately by the asker. This is similar to how I view this prospect. I could not care less if 2 rows hypothetically made every card perfectly balanced, card advantage was a non-issue and there was a Michael Jackson card which did a perfectly tuned animated dance to the Witcher soundtrack; I could not care less, since the game presented would not be Gwent.
IMPACT
In one hand, there are excuses that this is to simplify the game, to make the Card Arts bigger and apparently to make the game more suitable for Mobile use. I am unsure which of these opinions are mirrored by the development team, but I will explain my grievances with each regardless.
First of all is simplification. I fail to understand how this is a valid idea, since surely a game should be as complex and intricate as possible first; then adapt that experience to newer players. Sure it may be harder for brand new players to understand ALL the mechanics initially; but that is what the lower competitive ranks and the sample decks are for. If someone is repelled by the idea of losing to their first Kambi due to the higher skill required of the deck, are they someone who would honestly love and play the game for longer than 2 days before shifting to the next flavour of the month? I would much prefer a situation where the skill floor is too high rather than the skill ceiling is too low (since the two are undeniably linked), since a low ceiling simply makes all investment gained from the floor effectively useless. The floor is what attracts players, the ceiling is what retains players (hence why an initially 'hard' game with large mechanic spreads such as CSGO or LoL have maintained relatively high playercounts through time periods many others in their respective genre have perished in-I appreciate not the sole reason for each; but a determining factor to say the least); so surely it would be in the best interest to focus on maintaining a core playerbase than keeping it in a constant flux of new players getting interested, then leaving later?
Regarding UI simplification, or Card Art; there have already been numerous examples of how to cut down space and a working example that Gwent can easily run on Smartphones (perhaps with minor layout differences, but in no way the need to remove a row). And irregardless of this, I have personally never saw the size of the cards as an issue. In the recent patch which added faction board themes, the size of all cards was reduced slightly; an lo and behold there was not nary a murmur from the community. Off the top of my head alone, making the hand cards popup to a given extent onto the board would address this nonissue, but alas perhaps there is a larger factor at play that I simply cannot see. At the end of the day, Gwent could be completely played without Card Arts (it wouldn't be nice, but theoretically), since it is mechanics and general gameplay alone that dictate Gwent; which leads onto...
Balancewise, what can be done with 2 can surely be done with 3. Talk of 'lost potential' is in itself lost on me, since 3 rows inherently has 2 rows in it already. Surely keeping the board to 3 rows would by nature have exponentially more potential. With another of my horribly loose examples, removing your arms might make you run faster and jump higher in the short term, but the potential you lose by streamlining too much means you cannot achieve what you already had, and even more past that further down the line.
In short, I hope CDPR listens to community outcry. Even if they were to make a poll themselves linked to the main game about it (should be relatively simple, treat it in the style of a faction challenge, replace the two faction artworks for a vote 'Yes' and a vote 'No' and count up which is the bigger faction); I'm sure the opinion would be echoed too (Greater than 90% agreement on anything is no small feat, even from the albeit notably smaller scale internal poll). Are the possible benefits really greater than the obvious community backlash? As previously stated; I think the costs would outweigh any and all benefits gained, but that is just me.
I appreciate that sometimes it is beneficial for developers to stick their foot in the ground and not budge on an issue. For example, if this hadn't been the case, Darkbeast Paarl/Loran Darkbeast from Bloodborne would not be one of the best fights in the entire series, Cuphead may have crumbled mid development (etcetera, etcetera); but it is equally important to know when to disregard a major idea which seems 'good'. If this change goes though, I fully intend to mill all of my cards come the Homecoming update (get enough scrap/dust back for multiple decks); and not buy a single thing else with it. Homecoming will be to a Home I don't recognise. I hope CDPR has enough time to have not invested too many resources already into this avenue should they wish to change this later.
But alas, these are just the cries of a single player in a base of thousands (still think putting it to official poll would be the best for everyone). If anybody wishes to ask questions or play devils advocate, feel free to comment whatever; I'll try to get back in a reasonable time period. I may come back later to add or agree with points already made by other users. But finally, thanks for taking 2-3 minutes out of your day to read this absolute block of text.
I am heavily disheartened at the prospect of 2 rows. For 2 major reasons-Design and (possible) Impact;
DESIGN
Gwent is by nature not a 2 row game. Gwent is a minigame from the Witcher 3; who had a very few rules and mechanics. The standalone has mostly built upon this idea in every way, with almost every single mechanic being preserved in the game bar Faction Abilities (a change I was not happy to see go in its own right a year ago yesterday, but alas). In total; Muster, Agility, Tight Bond (in a more balanced form of Reaver Hunters), Immunity (albeit only on Arachas Queen/Werewolves with no immunity to Scorch), Weather, Decoy, Spies, Scorch, Resilience - everything is here and present. Yet the idea of removing a row fundamentally contrasts this.
Imagine the Gwent standalone as a house contract (fitting, with the name of the Homecoming update). At the bare minimum, everybody wants a 3 story detached house, with a few bits of furniture guaranteed. One can add as many pieces of extra furniture, as many paintings, as many detailed intricacies, remodel the entire floor plan if you want- as long as it is a 3 story house with the given furniture. Making the house into a 2 storey bungalow may be abjectly better in every way shape and form; it may be cheaper, more efficient and allow for more costs to go into more beautiful furniture; but at the end of the day it is useless, since it is fundamentally not what the initial ask was. It would get rejected immediately by the asker. This is similar to how I view this prospect. I could not care less if 2 rows hypothetically made every card perfectly balanced, card advantage was a non-issue and there was a Michael Jackson card which did a perfectly tuned animated dance to the Witcher soundtrack; I could not care less, since the game presented would not be Gwent.
IMPACT
In one hand, there are excuses that this is to simplify the game, to make the Card Arts bigger and apparently to make the game more suitable for Mobile use. I am unsure which of these opinions are mirrored by the development team, but I will explain my grievances with each regardless.
First of all is simplification. I fail to understand how this is a valid idea, since surely a game should be as complex and intricate as possible first; then adapt that experience to newer players. Sure it may be harder for brand new players to understand ALL the mechanics initially; but that is what the lower competitive ranks and the sample decks are for. If someone is repelled by the idea of losing to their first Kambi due to the higher skill required of the deck, are they someone who would honestly love and play the game for longer than 2 days before shifting to the next flavour of the month? I would much prefer a situation where the skill floor is too high rather than the skill ceiling is too low (since the two are undeniably linked), since a low ceiling simply makes all investment gained from the floor effectively useless. The floor is what attracts players, the ceiling is what retains players (hence why an initially 'hard' game with large mechanic spreads such as CSGO or LoL have maintained relatively high playercounts through time periods many others in their respective genre have perished in-I appreciate not the sole reason for each; but a determining factor to say the least); so surely it would be in the best interest to focus on maintaining a core playerbase than keeping it in a constant flux of new players getting interested, then leaving later?
Regarding UI simplification, or Card Art; there have already been numerous examples of how to cut down space and a working example that Gwent can easily run on Smartphones (perhaps with minor layout differences, but in no way the need to remove a row). And irregardless of this, I have personally never saw the size of the cards as an issue. In the recent patch which added faction board themes, the size of all cards was reduced slightly; an lo and behold there was not nary a murmur from the community. Off the top of my head alone, making the hand cards popup to a given extent onto the board would address this nonissue, but alas perhaps there is a larger factor at play that I simply cannot see. At the end of the day, Gwent could be completely played without Card Arts (it wouldn't be nice, but theoretically), since it is mechanics and general gameplay alone that dictate Gwent; which leads onto...
Balancewise, what can be done with 2 can surely be done with 3. Talk of 'lost potential' is in itself lost on me, since 3 rows inherently has 2 rows in it already. Surely keeping the board to 3 rows would by nature have exponentially more potential. With another of my horribly loose examples, removing your arms might make you run faster and jump higher in the short term, but the potential you lose by streamlining too much means you cannot achieve what you already had, and even more past that further down the line.
In short, I hope CDPR listens to community outcry. Even if they were to make a poll themselves linked to the main game about it (should be relatively simple, treat it in the style of a faction challenge, replace the two faction artworks for a vote 'Yes' and a vote 'No' and count up which is the bigger faction); I'm sure the opinion would be echoed too (Greater than 90% agreement on anything is no small feat, even from the albeit notably smaller scale internal poll). Are the possible benefits really greater than the obvious community backlash? As previously stated; I think the costs would outweigh any and all benefits gained, but that is just me.
I appreciate that sometimes it is beneficial for developers to stick their foot in the ground and not budge on an issue. For example, if this hadn't been the case, Darkbeast Paarl/Loran Darkbeast from Bloodborne would not be one of the best fights in the entire series, Cuphead may have crumbled mid development (etcetera, etcetera); but it is equally important to know when to disregard a major idea which seems 'good'. If this change goes though, I fully intend to mill all of my cards come the Homecoming update (get enough scrap/dust back for multiple decks); and not buy a single thing else with it. Homecoming will be to a Home I don't recognise. I hope CDPR has enough time to have not invested too many resources already into this avenue should they wish to change this later.
But alas, these are just the cries of a single player in a base of thousands (still think putting it to official poll would be the best for everyone). If anybody wishes to ask questions or play devils advocate, feel free to comment whatever; I'll try to get back in a reasonable time period. I may come back later to add or agree with points already made by other users. But finally, thanks for taking 2-3 minutes out of your day to read this absolute block of text.
At least i like the idea of Leader's Passive Abilities (something along the lines of faction identity, a concept supported by many users in this forum) and the new faction being nearly finished (come on, everybody knows its Toussaint!)
But the changes are so drastic that it will completely change the game, like between Witcher 3's version and Open Beta Gwent, so it's really hard to predict if they'll be positive or negative overall.
But the changes are so drastic that it will completely change the game, like between Witcher 3's version and Open Beta Gwent, so it's really hard to predict if they'll be positive or negative overall.
el_Bosco;n10958261 said:
No, he said they want to punish dry passing by having a hand size limit of 10. https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/8lw0dx/gwent_team_testing_10card_hand_limit_idea_to
What's the point of this change? People wouldn't dry pass so often if it wasn't the better option in many cases. If you want to reduce the number of times people drypass you have to fix your game, not fix your players! I don't think gwent will die, but I think it'll be dead to me. Months of frustration resulting in me quitting the game, then a short time of excitement after the HC announcement and again a lot of frustration right now.
I'll tell you the answer, but you won't like it....ser2440;n10958345 said:
.. one word: Mobile.
Nothing homecoming about it. They just needed a spiffy name so the community would not flip out. Had they announced "we are taking 6 months to completely make a new card game that had nothing to do with gwent" people would be more upset... Or they just don't know themselves what to do and are stuck between bringing in casuals and more funds at the expense of the original fan's. I have to hope we are going to be pleasantly surprised in the end but have my doubts. They need to keep a back up of pre homecoming Gwent just in case
Hah... what did i told you guys? From homecoming announcement i was 90% sure they would go 2 rows; They wouldnt even put it there if they werent heavily inclined to do it.
i think you meant kind of sad....
We will never see gwent (the real gwent) multiplayer again.
From 6 months now, we will have a brand new ccg... its gonna be good? I dont know. I'm skeptical due to cdpr history with this game, but whatever. What i'm sure is that is not gonna be gwent anymore.
Also; i'm not saying that just because the 2 rows. People are missing other thing that will change gameplay massively; hand size restriction. If they want to implement this and keep restricting CA gain, draw cards will have to be massively changed and the pass mechanic will also be heavily affected (cant pass with full hand for example).
StrykerxS77x;n10958411 said:
i think you meant kind of sad....
We will never see gwent (the real gwent) multiplayer again.
From 6 months now, we will have a brand new ccg... its gonna be good? I dont know. I'm skeptical due to cdpr history with this game, but whatever. What i'm sure is that is not gonna be gwent anymore.
Also; i'm not saying that just because the 2 rows. People are missing other thing that will change gameplay massively; hand size restriction. If they want to implement this and keep restricting CA gain, draw cards will have to be massively changed and the pass mechanic will also be heavily affected (cant pass with full hand for example).
Last edited:
I would say that the positive points clearly outweigh the negative ones. No more spies! This outlook alone gives me hope that the boys and girls will manage it in a good way. I do not understand the discussion of 2 or 3 rows, because we in no way know what the implementation will look like. Just because we are used to use 3 rows pointlessly doesn't mean that 2 rows don't allow more tactical depth if the conditions are right. Just wait and see, and then get upset when we can play homecoming. And at last: if you want to play the witcher version of gwent: play witcher 3 