Fighting adjacent opponent units in Shared melee row

+
Fighting adjacent opponent units in Shared melee row

I have made a wish about implementing Fight ability if there will be Shared Melee row in HomeComing, where is only one melee row thus you can place units next to your opponent.
  1. New ability “Fight”:
    - Place your unit adjacent to an opponent at the same row, deal damage to enemy (verse visa, and at the same time)
e.g. Opponent Wardancer (3 str) was in the shared melee row. Now you deploy your Nekker (4 str) next to it. After the Fight is resolved, you have a damaged 1 str Nekker standing and the enemy Wardancer went to the graveyard.​


I am going to elaborate and put examples new card abilities related to Fight.

2a. Fight (First Strike)
Opponent unit does not retaliate, unless they also have First Strike​
2b. Fight (No Retaliation)
This unit is not capable of deal damage in any Fight
- for most machines, mages etc that has Ranged/Siege row as preferred rows, thus cannot retaliate​
2c. Fight (Flanking)
If opponent unit is right next to your ally, you gain First Strike
- for most Calvary has this​
2d. Fight (Long sword)
This unit is immune to any First Strike​
2e. Fight (Spear)
Can Fight unit on adjacent row. Gain First Strike to non-shielded unit on adjacent row (but not same row)​

Below are non-core, for expansion of fraction identity:
2f. Fight (Double Axe)
Ignore shield, deal double damage to No Retaliation opponent​
2g. Fight (Whip)
Move opponent from adjacent row to this row, then Fight​
- Pull No Retal units to this row
2h. Wrestle (Lock)
Deal no damage to opponent, unless been attacked. Toggle adjacent unit’s lock status​
2i. Taunt (Long sword)
Same as Fight (long sword), but opponent Fighting unit has to fight with this unit​
2j. Fight (Poison)
If opponent survive the fight, deal 1 damage in all coming turns​
2k. Fight (Stock weapon)
Fight with the weapon your last unit used.​
2l. Fight (Opponent weapon)
Fight with the weapon your opponent last used.​
2m. Fight (Claws)
Fight 2 opponent units, each with half of the your strength​

Goal:
1. Give Gwent a new layer of interactivity.
2. Beside making row placement matters, make army composition (and weapon) matter, as point spam is no longer everything like now.
3. More fun if they have an 'overwhelming row' mechanics, where meeting specific (and fair) condition you can place Fighting units on opponent Ranged/Siege row.
 
Last edited:
It could work, but it just seems a bit unnecessary, too many keywords as well (it would be complex enough already). I agree that shared Melee row is the way to go, but don't agree with your implementation of it. "Overwhelming row" mechanic I feel is not needed either (some of it seems too strong).

Just a reminder on how it could alternatively work. All units placed in the Melee row would automatically fight an adjacent enemy, dealing 1 damage to either left or right enemy each turn. Some units might have ability to deal 2 damage, or 1 and 1 damage, etc. There will be a "Taunt" spell, casting on a unit in Melee row (ally or enemy), causing adjacent units to attack only it (controlling rng), some units would have this ability innate.
But here's the most important part (since you maybe were concerned about Melee row overcrowding?), example: If both players only play in the Melee row turn after turn, all units will deal damage to adjacent enemies at the end of each player's turn. So units would deal double their normal damage every full turn, if play continues in the Melee row. Melee row would otherwise be balanced to never allow swarm on it, and rarely being able to play 2 units on it in one player's turn.

I think since it's a kind of "skirmish" in the Melee row, it makes sense that all units attack and maybe take some damage, hence "Gwent: Skirmish".
I think your mechanics would over-complicate things too much, there will be many other mechanics to think about, not to mention many interactions with units on the Melee row from all possible directions. Range indicators, Preferred rows, what units to place on Melee row in order to play golden weather (Melee row has friendly fire), Deflective mechanic, Locking units for a number of turns preventing them to deal damage each turn, moving (saving) units out of harm's way, etc, etc. Trust me, it will be complex enough already. Sure, some of your suggestion could become abilities/spell whatever, but I just don't like how your basic fight mechanic works, with often instant resolution (not allowing for more interactions with units on the row, since they would often be removed instantly).

I don't dislike your idea, but for the reasons I mentioned, I don't really prefer it.
 
It also starts to sound a lot like mtg or other ccg's with first strike and otjer abilities that were listed. I like gwent because it is gwent. I really hope they don't veer far from what this game is. I am very nervous about the rows situation.
 
Complexity is in the eye of beholder. But yet, I agree there is quite a lot to absorb in the OP.
2a ~ 2e is the core of the idea, the rest aren't mostly for variety or fraction identity or card expansion. It is quite intuitive too.
It does add design space, one of the ways that allow point-spam aren't that matter.

Take the Spear for example, it is quite too easy to get its full value with its First Strike ability. Thus, spear units will generally have less strength, say 6~8 str. If it cannot find suitable opponent target, it does lost value.
 
Udalryk;n10950161 said:
with often instant resolution (not allowing for more interactions with units on the row, since they would often be removed instantly).

It is partly as a solution to prevent overcrowding the shared row, row limit considering, mobile screen considering.
And doing adjacent damage each turn requires players' calculation each turn, this is not what I want.

There will be many damaged units on the melee row, few if any engine units will live/designed for this row. Engines' preferred row mostly in Ranged
Weather or other row effects will be interesting on a row that have both friendly and opponent unit.
Units with melee as preferred role still generally put here, to get the bonus. Thus deck building needs to take weapon/fighting into calculation.

Void_Singer;n10950308 said:
well it certainly highlights the problem with playing first
Yes, you are right. I don't have a full solution. Yet not necessary all units got disadvantaged playing first on the melee row,
maybe some fraction specific units, has a better portion of units of Taunt (First Strike), or Taunt (Long sword)

Also the 'overwhelming row' mechanics actually give playing second more pressure, if the second don't have an answer to the melee row.
 
Last edited:
ClimbHigh, Row limit would probably be 12, cards would simply overlap each other like in hand. Counting result of the row would be a bit of a hassle every round it's true, there should be one number that shows row's resolution on the side, as in-game feature. If it's uncertain (like if some units have armor and adjacent enemy has 50% chance to damage it or another), it would show that as well, with maybe just a more red color to the number (or a ❗ to the side of it), which you can hover over to get more precise info (not that it would be that hard to see it for yourself on the row).
 
Last edited:
I have made a crucial mistake in the OP.

Fight (First Strike)
Opponent unit does not retaliate, unless they also have First Strike <-- not what I meant!

It should be:
Opponent unit retaliate with its remaining str, only after you damage him,
unless they also have First Strike

 
Last edited:

Guest 4021160

Guest
Climbhigh = Udalryk probability around 80%. Anyway, isn't one thread about 5 rows enough? It feels like someone is trying to force feed this idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Karolis.petrikas You push the idea you believe in. If we didn't know about their 4 row plans I wouldn't push it like that. But it's wrong to think I'm pushing "my" idea. It's just an idea that I happened to come across. I think it's a great idea, and would probably make for a much more enjoyable Gwent. So far I haven't really seen any better ideas (the idea to separate 4 rows in 3 parts vertically, producing 6 sections on each side is as well an idea with good potential (from recent reddit post)). Ideas introduced by OP are not bad either, but they lack some elegancy, and don't preserve/have this tension in the Melee row that my idea has.

Would appreciate if you dropped your personal vendetta against me though. It's starting to get annoying. (What happens when I add a user to Ignore list? I did it now, but still see their posts. But I as well want to see discussions in the threads ignored users start. Preferably only hiding text (and avatar) with option to unhide.)
 
Last edited:

Guest 4021160

Guest
Sorry, but its just not that great. And you don't really believe in it as well. You just say it for sake of saying it. You've mentioned once you would take your time to learn coding just to make this happen, but when I asked you if you will have me as your partner in developing it, you said you weren't that serious. And to that I replied, that small dogs barks the loudest. Remember that? Maybe you should consider stoping this act.
 
Karolis.petrikas said:
Sorry, but its just not that great.
That's fine, everyone has an opinion. But I haven't seen better "complete" suggestions yet.

Karolis.petrikas said:
And you don't really believe in it as well. You just say it for sake of saying it.
I don't believe in it as a separate game from Gwent because it would take immense effort to make, creating completely new lore and art. What would be ideal is for Gwent itself to become that, not a separate game. It might seem at times that I don't believe in it because what's really the chance of this becoming reality, 0.01%? It's discouraging, together with CDPR's game philosophy.

Karolis.petrikas said:
You've mentioned once you would take your time to learn coding just to make this happen, but when I asked you if you will have me as your partner in developing it, you said you weren't that serious.
That comment I made was a form of rhetoric more than anything, to get a point, a state of mind across. I don't think it was that ambiguous to misunderstanding. As I said already, to actually learn programming and then make a quality game I would be happy with, considering the fact that it would fit best current Gwent and not a separate game, is an incredible task, even for an experienced game developer with people that want to help.

Karolis.petrikas said:
And to that I replied, that small dogs barks the loudest. Remember that? Maybe you should consider stoping this act.
I got this last part edited out by a moderator, so I can't repeat it in exactly same way. But I don't actually have to comment on this, because what I already said invalidates it. Not only because of your last comments, but as well because of your comments on this forum in general - things should be pretty crystal clear.
 
Last edited:
Void_Singer;n10950308 said:
well it certainly highlights the problem with playing first

Another way to mitigate this is to have below ability.

3a. Fortify (at shared melee row only)
Boast unit by 4, if there is no opponent unit in this row

If there is a shared melee row, the one who focus on 'winning' this row by building such a deck, should be given some incentive to do so.

The key is 'some' incentive here when they balance it. You do not want every game is about point spamming, while one don't want every game focus on Shared Melee row mechanics. The whole point of this suggestion is to open up design space, not reducing it.
 
it's a general issue with the whole game, and the main source of the coinflip issue... I didn't intend for it to be a specific criticism of your idea
 
Top Bottom