Powercreep in Gwent

+

rrc

Forum veteran
Gwent is the first card game I had ever played and when I started I hadn't even know about other card games like Heartshstone or MTGA. In the early days I read an article about how and why Gwent is better game than Hearthstone: Hearthstone is a pay2win game because it powercreeps with each new expansion. I didn't even know the term powercreep. I had to search and understand what it meant. The article went on to say Hearthstone is a pay2win where as Gwent is from CDPR who would never do that. This is around 2 or 2.5 years back (before Half-Elf even got Premium version).

But after HC, Gwent is all in on powercreep. Every new expansion powercreeps the previous expansions. New expansion cards can mainly be dealt by the cards of the same expansion (for example: Drakkar, only the cards that are from that expansion can kill it in one shot. Even Gold damage cards from core or previous expansion can't kill it; but Betsy or other 4/5P bronze cards from that expansion can do that). Usually, after a while, the OP cards are balanced a bit, but still leaving the cards that were powercrept remaining powercrept. Enraged Ifrit is one solid example. CC powercrept it with Regis:BL, and then Betsy with IJ expansion.

The latest expansion is the biggest offender; Scenarios, Redeyah, Matta, Maaral, and almost all the new legendaries, faction or neutral are super OP and decks with these cards are much better and stronger than the decks which don't have these cards. Before this expansion, it was all about Defenders. If you don't have defenders you are missing out the game. Every deck had defenders. Now, Defenders are not as common, but Matta, Redeyah, Scenarios are the most seen cards. People would prefer Redeyah or Matta Or Maraal instead of Defenders; because they are better. Is it not an evidence about for powercreep? And moreover, almost everyone agrees that powercreep is real in Gwent HC. Don't get me wrong. I loved this expansion as it opened up many dead archetypes, but it achieved it through powercreep.

Now, I believe the reason Gwent is still not Pay2Win even after the evident powercreep is because, all the existing decks just need two to three new Legendary/Epic gold card from the new expansion and people will be able to craft those few cards with a little bit grinding. But still, the powercreep is an evident problem in Gwent. See any deck which is in the meta report. Everything will have at least a few gold cards and few bronze from new expansion. What is your opinion about this? Do you think powercreep in Gwent is within manageable limit? Or do you think Gwent should reduce the amount of powercreep it creates with each expansion?

IMO, Gwent should be careful with the amount of powercreep it introduces in the game with new expansions, and, with every expansion, at least a few of the dead cards should get a new ability so that it is at the very least playable in meme fun deck (Ciri:Nova, Colossal Ifrit, Hattori, Crow's Eye, etc).
 
The power creep is real, but that's not the only reason Heartshstone is P2W and, more importantly, that's not enough reason for Gwent to be called P2W.

In Gwent, there are more ways for F2P players to gain resources:
1. Daily quest
2. Daily tiers, by winning 6/12/24 rounds
3. GG rewards at the end of the match
4. A leveling system that gives you rewards and unique perks (which, in turn, offers you more rewards)
5. A monthly faction challenge offering extra rewards by completing quests
6. Playing ranked, even at lower ranked you'll receive some rewards at the end of the month
7. Daily login rewards (added in the latest patch).

In Gwent, it's easier to keep up with the meta:
1. Smaller deck size (making it easier to create competitive decks)
2. You cannot fill your deck with only legendary cards (unlike with HS and MtG, making those decks very expensive)
3. Less frequent expansions with less cards (making it easier to keep up with the collection)
4. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, it's easier to earn rewards.
 

rrc

Forum veteran
The power creep is real, but that's not the only reason Heartshstone is P2W and, more importantly, that's not enough reason for Gwent to be called P2W.

In Gwent, there are more ways for F2P players to gain resources:
1. Daily quest
2. Daily tiers, by winning 6/12/24 rounds
3. GG rewards at the end of the match
4. A leveling system that gives you rewards and unique perks (which, in turn, offers you more rewards)
5. A monthly faction challenge offering extra rewards by completing quests
6. Playing ranked, even at lower ranked you'll receive some rewards at the end of the month
7. Daily login rewards (added in the latest patch).

In Gwent, it's easier to keep up with the meta:
1. Smaller deck size (making it easier to create competitive decks)
2. You cannot fill your deck with only legendary cards (unlike with HS and MtG, making those decks very expensive)
3. Less frequent expansions with less cards (making it easier to keep up with the collection)
4. And, as noted in the previous paragraph, it's easier to earn rewards.
I started a poll to see if anyone feels Gwent is a P2W and I wanted to delete the poll and minimized it thinking the poll will be deleted. I deleted it myself just now after seeing the post. The reason I deleted the poll was, even I don't think for a bit Gwent is P2W. I never needed to spend money and I am sure I would never need to spend money to be relevant (though I will have to craft the new cards from the expansion, I could get it through crafting).

Thanks for the explanation @4RM3D! It makes a lot of sense now, especially the second half. The biggest thing is; not being able to fill all the cards with Legendary cards. I think that is the ONLY and MAIN reason why Gwent is not P2W. When I was in a break with Gwent, I tried a game called Mythgard. Even in that game, the deck size is 40 cards and theoretically you can fill the entire deck with Mythic cards (Legendary cards).

But I didn't even want this thread to be discussing about P2W aspect, but the powercreep aspect of it. BTW, nice profile photo @4RM3D ! I didn't realize it was you until I saw the name.
 
3. Less frequent expansions with less cards (making it easier to keep up with the collection)
Rly? MoO was released just 2 months after IJ.

Powercreep is a thing in every card game, but CDPR does it in really disrespectful way. If they want to make people buy new stuff, they should do formats, just like MTG or HS.
- standard: Novigrad and older + the last 2 expansions
- modern: everything
- legacy: Novigrad and older
 
Rly? MoO was released just 2 months after IJ.

MoO might have been an exception. It was a pretty small expansion, regardless. Besides, in the dev stream it was mentioned that the devs wanted to release one expansion less this year to focus on other things.
 
Hard to know what their decision were to powercreep their game but I have my theory.
I think CDPR tried to stay away from powercreeping their game as much as possible but they kinda reached the point where it's not possible anymore.

The reason why you want to powercreep your game is because the worst nightmare of a game developper is to release an expansion, look at the meta and realize that nobody is playing the new cards (I mean, why would you spend ressources to change anything in your deck if it performs just same without changing anything...Not to mention, the new cards can also end up being weaker if you design them to keep the balance as close as possible to the rest).

I mean, sure, there is the excitement of the new cards (I would definitely play the new cards myself) but I doubt everybody share my point of view.

An alternative to that would be to copy MTG system and make format...But while powercreeping is a form of pay2win, a format system is far worst, since you have to make significant change to your deck every time a new expansion is released (cards straight up become unplayable when they leave the format).

So, everything considered, I think it's the best plan for CDPR, they just powercreep a few cards, keeping the pay2win aspect at minimum and can still be sure that players will give a try to the new cards...Kind of a win/win sistuation, especially considering they tend to nerf OP cards afterwards anyway (not all of them, that's true but still).
 
Hard to know what their decision were to powercreep their game but I have my theory.
I think CDPR tried to stay away from powercreeping their game as much as possible but they kinda reached the point where it's not possible anymore.

The reason why you want to powercreep your game is because the worst nightmare of a game developper is to release an expansion, look at the meta and realize that nobody is playing the new cards (I mean, why would you spend ressources to change anything in your deck if it performs just same without changing anything...Not to mention, the new cards can also end up being weaker if you design them to keep the balance as close as possible to the rest).

I mean, sure, there is the excitement of the new cards (I would definitely play the new cards myself) but I doubt everybody share my point of view.

An alternative to that would be to copy MTG system and make format...But while powercreeping is a form of pay2win, a format system is far worst, since you have to make significant change to your deck every time a new expansion is released (cards straight up become unplayable when they leave the format).

So, everything considered, I think it's the best plan for CDPR, they just powercreep a few cards, keeping the pay2win aspect at minimum and can still be sure that players will give a try to the new cards...Kind of a win/win sistuation, especially considering they tend to nerf OP cards afterwards anyway (not all of them, that's true but still).
Powercreep makes old cards just as unplayable as formats. Plus there is no clear line between what you can and cannot play = bait for new players.
Diferent formats are WAY better than powercreep - old cards are still playable and still good in Modern/Wild format and Standart has better balance because of smaller cardpool. That is win/win situation!
Also Ranked doen't have to be Standard-only - just divide the matchmaking into Standard and Modern/Wild.
 
Powercreep makes old cards just as unplayable as formats. Plus there is no clear line between what you can and cannot play = bait for new players.
Diferent formats are WAY better than powercreep - old cards are still playable and still good in Modern/Wild format and Standart has better balance because of smaller cardpool. That is win/win situation!
Also Ranked doen't have to be Standard-only - just divide the matchmaking into Standard and Modern/Wild.
I actually disagree.
I'm sorry but saying that all of the old cards are unplayable is far from being true.
Powercreep in Gwent takes more the form of changing a few slots in your deck. I'm still playing a lot of cards that are around since the BETA, even though they're probably not at all doing the same thing as they used to, they're still here.

Also, I would think twice before spliting the matchmacking between Standard and Modern. Gwent has a rather small pool of players compared to MTG, in fact I'm almost certain HS has more players, it used to have more, at the very least, that part I'm sure.

They already splitted the player base by creating Arena, I have the feeling that creating another format would hurt the game more than it would help it.
 
Most of the old cards are obviously playable.....for now. IMO formats are inevitable, as the card pool gets bigger, all the old cards will eventually get powercreeped out of the meta. If old cards are unplayable, than so are the starting decks. Intended powercreep is just not a good solution, it's going to backfire sooner or later.
 
Powercreep has in every player vs player game... and... it s...s big time.
The problem with MoO is the overuse of Meta Internet Decks and a huge step down in diretion of variety of decks and card usage.

The seasons has been filled with exploitable decks (NG and NR been the Big offenders) and classic is dominated by poison and stupid replayable decks (ressurrection and buy extra card). I used to like Gwent because we played 10 cards or so per round and was it.

Now has payers using a whole deck on Round 1, yea using a Skellige card of 2 power it is possible.

So, the game became tedious like hell.
 
Hard to know what their decision were to powercreep their game but I have my theory.
I think CDPR tried to stay away from powercreeping their game as much as possible but they kinda reached the point where it's not possible anymore.

The reason why you want to powercreep your game is because the worst nightmare of a game developper is to release an expansion, look at the meta and realize that nobody is playing the new cards (I mean, why would you spend ressources to change anything in your deck if it performs just same without changing anything...Not to mention, the new cards can also end up being weaker if you design them to keep the balance as close as possible to the rest).

I mean, sure, there is the excitement of the new cards (I would definitely play the new cards myself) but I doubt everybody share my point of view.

An alternative to that would be to copy MTG system and make format...But while powercreeping is a form of pay2win, a format system is far worst, since you have to make significant change to your deck every time a new expansion is released (cards straight up become unplayable when they leave the format).

So, everything considered, I think it's the best plan for CDPR, they just powercreep a few cards, keeping the pay2win aspect at minimum and can still be sure that players will give a try to the new cards...Kind of a win/win sistuation, especially considering they tend to nerf OP cards afterwards anyway (not all of them, that's true but still).
I really don't get it. This game has soooooo many incomplete archetypes so why not spend time filling those in? And people will play them without ANY powercreep.
Post automatically merged:

CDPR should remove DECKS from their websites and force players to either search for decks on some other platform, instead of handing decks to all players on a silver platter.

Added to this, they should sort the game so that many and varied decks stand a chance. Probably never happen, 'tis why I'm now playing Chess instead...
So are you going to return to gwent?
 
I really don't get it. This game has soooooo many incomplete archetypes so why not spend time filling those in? And people will play them without ANY powercreep.
Because they're not whilling to fill them up (probably because they don't know how...I'm not sure CDPR know where they're going with those archetypes, honestly. That's one thing I always found confusing about them, they design cards to work in an archetype but even they don't know what it would look like and how to make it work).

I do agree with you though, 1oo%, they should definitely develop unfinished archetypes. That's something I suggested many times before, more archetypes is always good for the game and cards that support an archetype that doesn't exist are just pure frustration for the players.

...Like Ciri Nova, for example, either they redesign her or they make an archetype for her but in her current state, she's useless (like, 1oo% unplayable...even for fun).

It doesn't have much to do with balancing though and wouldn't prevent powercreep.
When you think about it, the same problem occurs, why peoples would play new archetypes involving new cards they need to craft or purchase through kegs if the one they're playing is still performing as well.

And if they design the new archetype to be more powerful that the others so peoples play it, then this is precisely powercreep that's happening right there.
 
Hard to know what their decision were to powercreep their game but I have my theory.
I think CDPR tried to stay away from powercreeping their game as much as possible but they kinda reached the point where it's not possible anymore.
Actually, I think some of that has to do with their design philosophy of trying to bring up the power level of other cards, than nerf troublesome ones. That in turn likely stems from beta and HC release where balance patches and card changes were regular occurances. One of the downsides to the previous nerf and balance approach is that it alienates players who are comfortable playing one deck or style by forcing them to essentially relearn the game. We probably didn't notice this as much in beta, since changes tended to fairly small scale (plus it was beta, so to be expected), but HC certainly alienated a large portion of the playerbase with the dramatic change to the game. I think only now is Gwent starting to recover from that. So bringing up the power level doesn't fundamentally change a deck or style and allows for a longer interval between balancing. The down side is that power creep is pretty much built into this approach.
 
I think CDPR tried to stay away from powercreeping their game as much as possible but they kinda reached the point where it's not possible anymore.

The reason why you want to powercreep your game is because the worst nightmare of a game developper is to release an expansion, look at the meta and realize that nobody is playing the new cards [...]
I do agree with you though, 1oo%, they should definitely develop unfinished archetypes.

Poison was an unfinished archetype for NG and look what has happened there. Certain new cards are definitely stronger. However, kindling incomplete archetypes seems to have an even bigger impact. Ironic, because Poison (in any faction) was pretty bad when it was first released. Similar thing has happened with the dwarfs archetype that suddenly got a huge boost with a previous expansion.

Now, I am not saying CDPR shouldn't support old archetypes, but they should be careful by not making one stronger than the rest. It doesn't help that, in the past, a lot of cards have been nerfed, destroying some of the old archetypes, which can no longer compete.
 
Actually, I think some of that has to do with their design philosophy of trying to bring up the power level of other cards, than nerf troublesome ones. That in turn likely stems from beta and HC release where balance patches and card changes were regular occurances. One of the downsides to the previous nerf and balance approach is that it alienates players who are comfortable playing one deck or style by forcing them to essentially relearn the game. We probably didn't notice this as much in beta, since changes tended to fairly small scale (plus it was beta, so to be expected), but HC certainly alienated a large portion of the playerbase with the dramatic change to the game. I think only now is Gwent starting to recover from that. So bringing up the power level doesn't fundamentally change a deck or style and allows for a longer interval between balancing. The down side is that power creep is pretty much built into this approach.
Makes sense, could be that too, definitely. Maybe even both.

Poison was an unfinished archetype for NG and look what has happened there. Certain new cards are definitely stronger. However, kindling incomplete archetypes seems to have an even bigger impact. Ironic, because Poison (in any faction) was pretty bad when it was first released. Similar thing has happened with the dwarfs archetype that suddenly got a huge boost with a previous expansion.

Now, I am not saying CDPR shouldn't support old archetypes, but they should be careful by not making one stronger than the rest. It doesn't help that, in the past, a lot of cards have been nerfed, destroying some of the old archetypes, which can no longer compete.
Well, hard to argue with that, I agree 1oo%.
If they make new archetypes they need to balance them. My personal opinion is that the game needs to be as balanced as possible. I don't care if only a few cards from a new expansion are played by the majority of players because they don't want to craft them. The most healthy line for a card game (any game in fact) is to balance it. This is what creates diversity and it also contributes into instauring a good playing envirronement (because all of the sudden, players don't hate each other for playing the OP deck that involves using a BS unbeatable combo. Peoples are more chill in a well balanced meta, throw GG all around and everybody's happy).

To be completely honest, Poison should not be an archetype...I mean, at all.
There is a lot of effects that can serve as a base material for an archetype but Poison isn't one of them.
CDPR should really be careful not to make the mistakes they did before, btw, because that was the reason why control used to be too dominant. If you throw too much of one effect in a deck, then it gets out of control.


Give too much damage/pin effects to a faction and control becomes too aggressive, give too much poison and Poison becomes too oppressive...

The strange part is that they didn't make this mistake with Defenders and kept only one unit per faction so, they realize adding too much of an effect can be a problem but they still do it.
 
Given how homogenised archetypes have gotten over the last few releases, I wonder if the plan for Gwent is to simplify and have about 3 archetypes which encompass a few evergreen kewywords and are common to across all factions? With that advanced archetypes could be made as sub-types or combinations of basic ones, along with the option of being special releases in their own right(e.g. Poison as a sub-type of Alchemy; The Wild Hunt as a special release). I could see this solving the problem of leader abilities and incomplete archetypes.
 
Because they're not whilling to fill them up (probably because they don't know how...I'm not sure CDPR know where they're going with those archetypes, honestly. That's one thing I always found confusing about them, they design cards to work in an archetype but even they don't know what it would look like and how to make it work).

I do agree with you though, 1oo%, they should definitely develop unfinished archetypes. That's something I suggested many times before, more archetypes is always good for the game and cards that support an archetype that doesn't exist are just pure frustration for the players.

...Like Ciri Nova, for example, either they redesign her or they make an archetype for her but in her current state, she's useless (like, 1oo% unplayable...even for fun).

It doesn't have much to do with balancing though and wouldn't prevent powercreep.
When you think about it, the same problem occurs, why peoples would play new archetypes involving new cards they need to craft or purchase through kegs if the one they're playing is still performing as well.

And if they design the new archetype to be more powerful that the others so peoples play it, then this is precisely powercreep that's happening right there.
I don't think it would work like that. Different archetypes don't have to be more powerful. They just have to be fun and interesting. Archetypes with different win conditions would help.
 
Different archetypes don't have to be more powerful. They just have to be fun and interesting. Archetypes with different win conditions would help.
So true. Ideally there would be many different archetypes that are properly balanced so that they are all competitively playable.

The core problem is that CDPR seems unable/unwilling to properly balance and make the game more strategic. I remember Jason saying in a stream something about big point swings to make the game more exciting. Sure, a big point swing is exciting, but only when it is a reward for a really good set-up instead of get-lucky-in-the-card-draw and mindless 1 - 2 card automatic OP plays. New and (anyone-with-half-a-brain-can-see) blatantly OP cards are released that competitive players will need to win. Cards are power-crept, even destroying archetypes (SK self-wounding has turned into hitting-self-armor-wounding-nothing). Bad and OP mechanics that heavily rely on the gambling of card-draw RNG such as the binary Poison - Destroy and Scenario artifacts are promoted. Getting lucky with card draws and then executing big point swings with OP cards and mechanics is not very intelligent, calculative or strategic, but a simple gamble. That's why Gwent is now collecting virtual dust on my desktop.
 
Top Bottom