Suggestion for GWENT Homecoming

[Batholon]

Go crazy as it's fun. I mean not in RNG but in strength like bronze units will start 15/20 strength Silver will go around 50 & Gold will 100 something like that. If total score reach 600/800 I don't see anything wrong in it.

tedious calculation is what is wrong with it.

 

[l_WHIT3WOLF_l]

tedious calculation is what is wrong with it.

can you explain how ?

 

[South8]

can you explain how ?

Humans are used to calculating with things up to the order of tens. Calculation with numbers less than 10 is usually immediate and without effort, from 0-100 minimal effort is required. However as you scale these numbers up to several hundreds, things get difficult, we simply aren't used to it. Example: it's much easier to add 8 points to 44 than it is 73 to 448 (although the result is practically the same, just scaled by 10). It takes you an extra second or two and it's just meaningless. Besides, draws would be almost impossible and balancing the cards would be a lot more difficult when numbers got that much out of control.

In my opinion, numbers are already too high, it shouldn't be so easy to reach 100. With lesser powered cards you get a much more balanced game and it gets more difficult to build a high difference in points - strategic gameplay becomes more essential. So in fact I would propose an exact opposite - CDPR should decrase average power of bronzes (golds and silvers currently seem to be at a quite good spot).

coinflip isn't the problem. having a 99% reaction based card set is. if there were more plays that generated value by being played in advance (or a system to book value) coinflip would be largely a moot point. without a first mover advantage to balance out reaction advantage there is no sane solution to coinflip issues.

THIS! Thank you. People don't seem to understand this enough. The game is currently too much reaction based and of course in such game going first is a disadvantage. With more proactive cards, going first could be advantageous and coinflip would no longer be such a bad thing. There will always have to be one player who starts, no matter what way it's decided. The best thing to do is to balance the game in such a way as to make both coins desirable. I actually have a couple of decks in which I absolutely want to go first or at least am totally fine with it as I can prepare my game.

And the proposition of alternating going first/second seems too abusable to be of use. You will always know if you start or not and prepare in advance, which IMO is not a good thing: you will only see some decks on blue coin and others on red. The game will get stale real quick this way.

 

[l_WHIT3WOLF_l]

Humans are used to calculating with things up to the order of tens. Calculation with numbers less than 10 is usually immediate and without effort, from 0-100 minimal effort is required. However as you scale these numbers up to several hundreds, things get difficult, we simply aren't used to it. Example: it's much easier to add 8 points to 44 than it is 73 to 448 (although the result is practically the same, just scaled by 10). It takes you an extra second or two and it's just meaningless. Besides, draws would be almost impossible and balancing the cards would be a lot more difficult when numbers got that much out of control. In my opinion, numbers are already too high, it shouldn't be so easy to reach 100. With lesser powered cards you get a much more balanced game and it gets more difficult to build a high difference in points - strategic gameplay becomes more essential. So in fact I would propose an exact opposite - CDPR should decrase average power of bronzes (golds and silvers currently seem to be at a quite good spot).

Speak for yourself. It's ok if you are weak in math Other thing is when I suggest to increased points it's for all & both player will going to have high strength cards not only 1 side that 73 to 448 going to happen & if any rare case this happened then there is no need to calculate anything as it's almost not possible to win with that margin.

Yes but I accept for some like you calculating more digit number is tough then lower digit number

 

[South8]

Speak for yourself. It's ok if you are weak in math Other thing is when I suggest to increased points it's for all & both player will going to have high strength cards not only 1 side that 73 to 448 going to happen & if any rare case this happened then there is no need to calculate anything as it's almost not possible to win with that margin.

Yes but I accept for some like you calculating more digit number is tough then lower digit number

I am not saying that it would be too difficult, all I am saying and supporting is the statement by Batholon that it is tedious. There is no real reason to increase power, while there are counter-arguments. Unfortunately I do not understand what you meant by not being possible to win with that margin, care to clarify? You proposed to increase the power of all cards (this is quite obvious) and that's what I am aiming at: if my opponent has at some point for example 524 points on table and I have 448 and I know that with X card I get 73, do I overtake him or not? It's simply and undeniably an unnecessary additional effort for most humans. If you can do this with exactly the same effort as with 52 >? 44+7 then good for you, but most people do not like that sort of numbers and might be put off gwent for this reason (and judging by the forums, last thing gwent needs right now is more such reasons).

And there is no need, please, to aim anything at me, as I am not speaking for myself only. When designing games and proposing suggestions, keep in mind that thousands of people are going to play it and that you have to take into account how to make a game approachable to everyone, not just those that like to train their "math skills" by doing 3-digit addition.

 

[Void_Singer]

[...]
And the proposition of alternating going first/second seems too abusable to be of use. You will always know if you start or not and prepare in advance, which IMO is not a good thing: you will only see some decks on blue coin and others on red. The game will get stale real quick this way.

yup... oh I go first this game, better play my "go first deck" and vice versa

 

[l_WHIT3WOLF_l]

I am not saying that it would be too difficult, all I am saying and supporting is the statement by Batholon that it is tedious. There is no real reason to increase power, while there are counter-arguments.

I have suggested that to make the game lil more interesting by thinking that cdpr will add some tools to game like trackers are providing & one of the feature is difference between points as console users can't use tracker. I understand that u r supporting Batholon but then post it in simple way rather than being over smart & talking about human psychology & blah blah blah

Unfortunately I do not understand what you meant by not being possible to win with that margin, care to clarify? You proposed to increase the power of all cards (this is quite obvious) and that's what I am aiming at: if my opponent has at some point for example 524 points on table and I have 448 and I know that with X card I get 73, do I overtake him or not? It's simply and undeniably an unnecessary additional effort for most humans. If you can do this with exactly the same effort as with 52 >? 44+7 then good for you, but most people do not like that sort of numbers and might be put off gwent for this reason (and judging by the forums, last thing gwent needs right now is more such reasons).

I am sorry that I misread your post about this as I though you are talking about scores (78-448) of players but now i got the point but as I said most of the time you only need difference between your & opp. score so if there is 50 point difference then mostly u need card with 51 or more power to lead. As I said above if cdpr will add this feature like trackers then I don't think it's going to be that hectic for anyone.

And there is no need, please, to aim anything at me, as I am not speaking for myself only. When designing games and proposing suggestions, keep in mind that thousands of people are going to play it and that you have to take into account how to make a game approachable to everyone, not just those that like to train their "math skills" by doing 3-digit addition.

I hope u understand that this is just a suggestion & it's not like cdpr will going to implement it asap as they see this thread, Of course game designers & developers are more smart people then us & they know what to do & not so if they find adding more strength is not good then they are not going to consider it.

& If you want to have discussion on suggestion then do it in proper way without thinking that u know everything & u r too smart, sorry but I really don't like your attitude in your 1st post :x

Anyways this discussion is over for me.. Thanks.

 

[South8]

I apologize if I came across as a smart-ass, I had no intention to do so. I like to elaborate and support my statements with arguments and I wanted to provide an explanation for your question as I agreed with a post who did not seem to be interested in replying (2 days have passed). I am glad we worked things out in the end.

 

[l_WHIT3WOLF_l]

I apologize if I came across as a smart-ass, I had no intention to do so. I like to elaborate and support my statements with arguments and I wanted to provide an explanation for your question as I agreed with a post who did not seem to be interested in replying (2 days have passed). I am glad we worked things out in the end.

All good man...no hard feelings. Yes & I too accept that more strength will be tough to calculate specially in tough situation & intense matches as well gwent is different than most of other ccg's. I just want cdpr to remove direct removal of cards to make things more interesting so no more those control decks as they are bad with no strategy imho.

Thanks.

 

[cunningasaweasel]

I hope they have some good ideas how they want to turn gwent into a battlefield. The stuff they mentioned so far doesn't impress me.