What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG

+
Oh yes, I've waited ages to being able to use this (very bad) pun. The time is now! Okay, enough joking around and onward to a very serious topic.

Note: I write this as a player and it's just my opinion.

What went wrong with Gwent? It's a difficult question to answer in one thread. So, I want to focus on only one aspect and maybe make another thread later about the other issues. Lastly, I won't be discussing superficial issues, but rather go straight to the root of the problems.

What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG

Gwent was never built from the ground up with the idea to become an online CCG. That's why certain (design) decisions of the original game, which, ironically, contributed to making the game unique, became an issue for the new Gwent. Because the design space was too limited, the game wasn't able to grow. Well, one of the most important aspects of a CCG is the ability to stay invested by releasing expansions to keep the meta influx (ever-changing) and that was Gwent's greatest challenge with its original design.

The solution was to remove all mechanics that held the game back. Let's take a quick look at some of the most prominent discarded mechanics:
- Passive faction abilities
- Gold immunity
- Weather (in its original form)
- Card advantage spies
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions)
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc)

The most important mechanic that changed Gwent completely, I haven't yet mentioned. The one that was scrapped at the start of Homecoming. The one I want to focus on here. The biggest difference between beta and now is that beta only had one action per turn. There were no orders, no double card plays with leader ability. No, you could only play one card and let the board resolve. That's it.

One action per turn was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it set the pace and focus of the game, which was one of its defining features. On the other hand, this limited the amount of interaction. In traditional CCG, you could play multiple cards per turn and take multiple actions. This allows for more complex strategies, in theory. Because Gwent was never about managing your turn, it was about managing the round and plan ahead precisely because you knew that the opponent and you could only take one action per turn. This increased the tactical aspect of the game, instead of decreasing it. It made the game easier to balance (arguably), but more difficult to expand. And in the latter lies the issue.

I have to applaud the devs for having the balls to essentially scrap Gwent and start over. However, I feel they have made the same mistake, still being bounded by maintaining a likeness to the original Gwent. With Homecoming, Gwent 2.0, I believe the devs didn't go far enough or, ironically, went too far. Gwent tried to separate itself from its competitors. Yet, at the same time, the game took many steps that would do the opposite (i.e. reduce its uniqueness) because the devs also realized the original Gwent was to difficult to maintain.

Now, the game is stuck in limbo, between a rock and a hard place, if you will, between the original Gwent and what it wants to become or maybe even what it needs to become, in order to flourish. At the moment, I feel we don't have either. That is, the the uniqueness of the original Gwent or the full potential of the new Gwent, even if it's in a different shape.

Adapting the game to make it a successful CCG was probably CDPR's greatest challenge and it walked a path that required many sacrifices along the way. Gwent Beta wasn't perfect either by any means. For example, the balancing was all over the place. However, back then, the game, at least, felt original and fresh. It felt like... actual Gwent. It could have been salvaged, maybe. But that time has come to pass. The old Gwent is no more. So, let's look ahead and see if Gwent can make it out of limbo and rise yet again.

---

On a somewhat related note, the things that do still set Gwent apart from the rest:
1. Best of 3 rounds
2. Provisions, instead of mana
3. High consistency (10 cards opening hand, small deck size of 25)

Points 2 and 3 have a great impact on balancing the game, which is probably my next topic in this series.
 
Last edited:
Game design is affected by financial aspects and business plans more than we, as gamers, would like.

I doubt that CDPR changed the mechanics to provide "design space". In order to adapt a PC/console game to became a mobile game, they had to scrap some aspects of the game. Some decisions limited the design space (reduce the number of rows), but were beneficial from the UI's point of view. I can't imagine mobile Gwent with the previous 6 rows system.

The narrative of a company that wants to improve the core design doesn't convince me. They rebooted the game with a financial and marketing strategy in mind. I'm not complaining, but I think they've bent the design of the game to other needs...

What (g)went wrong has to do a great deal with design choices that were influenced by their business strategy and by failing to cater to the needs of their customers. Who are those damned Gwent players? :think:
 
Who are those damned Gwent players?

Interestingly enough, I was thinking of making that part 3 of the series.

In order to adapt a PC/console game to became a mobile game, they had to scrap some aspects of the game.

Yes, that's true, but I believe only the 3rd row was a victim of this. Looking at it from a purely design perspective, when comparing beta with Homecoming+, then beta was actually an easier game to port to mobile; less interaction (mostly all those order cards) and lesser graphics. That's why I do not believe that mobile was the prime motivator to revamp Gwent.
 
I really liked Witcher 3 gwent, its what got me here.

I find in this format, theres not enough cards that interact at a high level to create a diverse card game. So we see very similar decks over and over.

However it does allow you to train for each deck over time.

There is a major issue with reusing cards multiple times and unbalanced opponent control mechanics.

There needs to be more synergistic cards that interact with the deck well instead of replaying leader or lippy multiple times etc. What makes it worse is that even quite a few leader abilities allow you to replay cards.

For the most part this game has some good things going. The visuals are good without being over the top.

Its just the unbalanced nature of certain mechanics like poison and replay cards notibly Nifgaard who rely on them which is the biggest faction problem of gwent, forcing a "if you cant beat them join them" mentality. This creates a toxic gameplay for those that want diverse and fun gameplay.
 
I've been playing Gwent since the open beta, I've played a lot lot of hours, and I've stopped playin' gwent some time ago, so I can tell You honestly reasons, maybe it will help a little bit in saving Gwent from fall. The first and foremost reason is a way of balancing the game. I am the type of player, who like to play only one faction, and spend dozens or even a hundreds of hours if necessary to create the deck strong enough, to be able to win with any other deck with a really good draw and good playing skills. I am not playin' meta, or netdecks - i was doing it always in my own way, and many times with not bad results - and it was possible for a long time in Gwent. The problem arise, when reds stared to introduce into the game more and more litelarey binary cards and counters (like artifact's, poisons, defenders etc) and not literary but practically binary mechanics (like harmony or thrive kikimora), that without Yerden or Igni are impossible to counter effectively. And the problem with these binary cards or mechanics is, that when they can really almost with certenity geave You single-handedly win aginst decks that they counter, in the same time they likely will be reasons why You will loose aginst other decks (for ex mentioned above yerden will almost single-handedly win aginst thrive decks, but in the same time aginst non-thrive decks most likely won't even repay his hiigh, 11points provinsion). And because of that the best thing that You can do is to prepaire a deck to play mainly aginst meta and accept to loose when You get opponents with other binary builds that You won't be able to counter - and that is something, that I couldn't stand longer and I said enough. Because in my opinion the right way of balance in the game is when with every one faction You are able with enough effort to create deck strong enough to - if same conditions are fulfilled- win with any other deck, faction, and mechanics not only with part of them, and part of them not. Mentioned by You mechanics of 2 or more cards in one turn is also IMO making a game unnecessarely complicated, but it is acceptable if the balance of factions is correct, not like today. Maybe topic for another post: what is a definition of correct balance, because it can have many meanings for many players - for ex my definition of right balance in the game I told You above.
Greets
 
Last edited:
4rm3d good article.

I cannot believe you left out one of two of the defining points of beta,
1) card advantage spies
2) 3 copies of bronzes.

But your point is well made with these omissions.

I do think one of the major issues was cdpr just refusing to rework cards after homecoming... there is still not a playable Ciri card and many cards that are useless.
 
I cannot believe you left out one of two of the defining points of beta,
1) card advantage spies
2) 3 copies of bronzes.

How could I forget about card advantage spies. Yeah, I should edit that in. Three bronze copies is also true, but that one didn't have as much of an impact because Gwent was reworked to "handle" just two copies. I mean, introducing a third copy now would be madness, but it did work for beta. Though, I do need to delve into this in part 2 when I talk about consistency and also tutors.

I do think one of the major issues was cdpr just refusing to rework cards after homecoming... there is still not a playable Ciri card and many cards that are useless.

You mean, re-rework? Homecoming was beta 2.0 (or 3.0 if you count closed beta). This actually brings another interesting dilemma. In short, all "unplayable" cards had already served their purpose. What you want is to start with a small card pool and keep expanding it with -well- expansions. However, in Homecoming the card pool had already grown (out of control) and reworking everything (again and again) takes too much time. More importantly, it doesn't bring in any money. That's why you release expansions. This deserves an own part in the "What Gwent Wrong" series, part X: Homecoming is the New Beta.

Like I said in the OP, bold move to revamp Gwent. Not without consequences, though.
 
Yes, that's true, but I believe only the 3rd row was a victim of this. Looking at it from a purely design perspective, when comparing beta with Homecoming+, then beta was actually an easier game to port to mobile; less interaction (mostly all those order cards) and lesser graphics. That's why I do not believe that mobile was the prime motivator to revamp Gwent.

As soon as you remove the 3rd row, you had to rework weather. In Beta you could counter somewhat weather by stacking your unit on the third row not affected by weather, but with two rows... Dagon Weather was a unique archetype that had to go with the two rows system.

Don't underestimate the pleasure that people get from clicking on something on their phone. Would you really release a mobile game, where you just have to place a card on the board? Pinging gives to the user the illusion of achieving something. Pew, pew!

As far as the "lesser graphics" is concerned, I think at the downgrade of the premium cards. They had to improve some graphical aspects to make the mobile version succeed, but they also had to downgrade features that limit mobile performance.

Interestingly enough, I was thinking of making that part 3 of the series.

I'm looking forward to it.
 
As a meme decklister, if there is such a term, I find the game has become pretty stale in what you can do for "fun". I don't mean old Imlerith or Swim breaking the game, but we've lost so so much.

Gone is viable weather, old consume(with nekkers ands slyzards and such), cards like freya's blessing etc locked to a faction not able to ressurrect non faction cards, blue dream and renew made trash, resilience, strenght, to name a few...

Oh, but we have poison, much less toxic than strenght and resillience, of course...:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to know how many of the players, who signed up for closed beta the first week, are still playing Gwent. You know, the ones, who wanted a stand-alone version of Gwent in the first place. Guess, there are not many. Unfortunately there is no way to get any reliable numbers.
 
As soon as you remove the 3rd row, you had to rework weather.

Yes, but weather already got "reworked" before that. Reworked -well- nerfed into oblivion, really. The end result might have been the same, but the motivation for changing it is different.

Don't underestimate the pleasure that people get from clicking on something on their phone.

Uhm, Gwent was not that kind of game. Has it become this kind of game? Now I am scared to think how much of an influence the mobile version of the game had on the design decisions. I still refuse to believe that CDPR knowingly abandoned their core audience. Rather, it was an somewhat unforeseen side-effect of revamping Gwent. When you do a 180, some players are going to hate it, while others are going to like it.
 
It would be interesting to know how many of the players, who signed up for closed beta the first week, are still playing Gwent. You know, the ones, who wanted a stand-alone version of Gwent in the first place. Guess, there are not many. Unfortunately there is no way to get any reliable numbers.

Yeah, Gwent has become a different game for better or worse. It's interesting to delve more into this when I talk about the player base.
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
Oh yes, I've waited ages to being able to use this (very bad) pun. The time is now! Okay, enough joking around and onward to a very serious topic.

Note: I write this as a player and it's just my opinion.

What went wrong with Gwent? It's a difficult question to answer in one thread. So, I want to focus on only one aspect and maybe make another thread later about the other issues. Lastly, I won't be discussing superficial issues, but rather go straight to the root of the problems.

What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG

Gwent was never built from the ground up with the idea to become an online CCG. That's why certain (design) decisions of the original game, which, ironically, contributed to making the game unique, became an issue for the new Gwent. Because the design space was too limited, the game wasn't able to grow. Well, one of the most important aspects of a CCG is the ability to stay invested by releasing expansions to keep the meta influx (ever-changing) and that was Gwent's greatest challenge with its original design.

The solution was to remove all mechanics that held the game back. Let's take a quick look at some of the most prominent discarded mechanics:
- Passive faction abilities
- Gold immunity
- Weather (in its original form)
- Card advantage spies
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions)
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc)

The most important mechanic that changed Gwent completely, I haven't yet mentioned. The one that was scrapped at the start of Homecoming. The one I want to focus on here. The biggest difference between beta and now is that beta only had one action per turn. There were no orders, no double card plays with leader ability. No, you could only play one card and let the board resolve. That's it.

One action per turn was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it set the pace and focus of the game, which was one of its defining features. On the other hand, this limited the amount of interaction. In traditional CCG, you could play multiple cards per turn and take multiple actions. This allows for more complex strategies, in theory. Because Gwent was never about managing your turn, it was about managing the round and plan ahead precisely because you knew that the opponent and you could only take one action per turn. This increased the tactical aspect of the game, instead of decreasing it. It made the game easier to balance (arguably), but more difficult to expand. And in the latter lies the issue.

I have to applaud the devs for having the balls to essentially scrap Gwent and start over. However, I feel they have made the same mistake, still being bounded by maintaining a likeness to the original Gwent. With Homecoming, Gwent 2.0, I believe the devs didn't go far enough or, ironically, went too far. Gwent tried to separate itself from its competitors. Yet, at the same time, the game took many steps that would do the opposite (i.e. reduce its uniqueness) because the devs also realized the original Gwent was to difficult to maintain.

Now, the game is stuck in limbo, between a rock and a hard place, if you will, between the original Gwent and what it wants to become or maybe even what it needs to become, in order to flourish. At the moment, I feel we don't have either. That is, the the uniqueness of the original Gwent or the full potential of the new Gwent, even if it's in a different shape.

Adapting the game to make it a successful CCG was probably CDPR's greatest challenge and it walked a path that required many sacrifices along the way. Gwent Beta wasn't perfect either by any means. For example, the balancing was all over the place. However, back then, the game, at least, felt original and fresh. It felt like... actual Gwent. It could have been salvaged, maybe. But that time has come to pass. The old Gwent is no more. So, let's look ahead and see if Gwent can make it out of limbo and rise yet again.

---

On a somewhat related note, the things that do still set Gwent apart from the rest:
1. Best of 3 rounds
2. Provisions, instead of mana
3. High consistency (10 cards opening hand, small deck size of 25)

Points 2 and 3 have a great impact on balancing the game, which is probably my next topic in this series.
I played quite a lot of Different Multiplayer Games, and by playing Gwent, I feel it lacks Flavour, Flavour is extremely important, aswell as Identity (Faction, Hero, Race, Champion etc etc).

There are not many Unique Mechanic and Card interactions for Factions, aswell as Art and Customisation, (Faction Related Card backs, main menu, Music etc), There can be many Interesting Unique Mechanics for each Faction, that are actually unique and Flavorful, and there can be many Faction and identity Art and Customisation, For example, Being able to Choose your Main Menu Background, More Faction Related Boards and Card backs, that some of them can be acquired by Feats of Strength, not Money, Being able to play Faction or Character Specific Soundtracks in Main menu or Deck builder or in game, etc etc.

I haven't played Beta, so I can't comment, but played a lot of Gwent in Witcher, comparing current Gwent to other Card games aswell as the Original Gwent, another Problem I see, is that it doesn't feel like a Card Game, the Menus, the Boards, it's like I'm playing an Strategy Game than a Card game, I saw old Gwent menus and they were much better than the Current one, much much better, where is the peaceful lovely music of Witcher Gwent? I noticed one of them plays in the Journey Page, and it's so good, I really don't like the music around Gwent, because it's Witcher music, not Gwent music, these two are different, those amazing Gwent musics in Blood and Wine!
Same can be applied to User interface, menus, etc, art Direction is Witchery, not Gwenty. Give me that feeling I'm sitting in a polish Tavern or house playing Gwent with family and Friends or Strangers.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but weather already got "reworked" before that. Reworked -well- nerfed into oblivion, really. The end result might have been the same, but the motivation for changing it is different.
[...]
I disagree on this one, the reworked weather was not exactly a nerf, it made it less binary, but making it 1-sided (to not require weather immunity on all units) and constant damaging was hardly a nerf.
In fact the changes left Biting Frost so strong that they had to nerf it again (and Caranthir had to be nerfed twice in a row).

Honestly I prefer Open Beta weather (as in not time limited, which results in **** value right now).
 

Gyg

Forum regular
I started playing Gwent after Homecoming and find the game really different from other Magic: The Gathering interations (Runeterra, Faeria, Hearthstone). The limited combat, three turns planning, great consistency (and Witcher lore) is what makes it stand apart. Yes, it limits somewhat the mechanics but I like it more than mentioned titles.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Not exactly sure i understood OP's take, so i cant really say i agree or disagree for now. What i do know,

- in my opinion, Homecoming was a terrible mistake, that set the game back several years. The game was NOT in such a terrible state that it warranted a blank slate, i would say its worse now than after the infamous Midwinter.

- you talk about what the dev team want Gwent to become, but i think not even they know that.
I mean, they want it to be profitable, and sustainable, with a large playerbase happy with the game and that spends money on their MTX, obviously... but from a gameplay perspective, i dont think they have a clear idea where to go. And this leads me to my 3rd and last point,

- i think Gwent's dev team is too small or underfunded for quite some time now. This is why im not even harsher with my constant criticism (yes, i can be even MORE critical, this is not even my final form...)
Most of Gwent's problems would be fixed with a larger workforce, to create updates more regularly, to get a proper QA team to avoid releasing tons of bugs and glitches, to be more in contact with their communities, to not be oblivious to the state their game is in and not understand why.
 
Not exactly sure i understood OP's take, so i cant really say i agree or disagree for now. What i do know,

- in my opinion, Homecoming was a terrible mistake, that set the game back several years. The game was NOT in such a terrible state that it warranted a blank slate, i would say its worse now than after the infamous Midwinter.

- you talk about what the dev team want Gwent to become, but i think not even they know that. [...]

- i think Gwent's dev team is too small or underfunded for quite some time now.

I wanted to make two points. First of all, the challenge of turning classic Gwent into a competitive CCG and why it didn't work out the first time. And secondly, if Homecoming was necessary to save Gwent. For the latter point, I explained that Gwent could have been salvaged. But if the devs wanted to start over, then they should have broken all the shackles that held Gwent back. Instead, we have a solution that's only half way there.

When I have to choose between beta and Homecoming, I would also pick the former. Even though I did like a lot of aspects of Homecoming, it was still a step back, in the beginning. While Homecoming has been vastly improved, over time, it wasn't without other setbacks.

I disagree with the size of Gwent's dev team, though. That's not the problem here. Even a small studio should be able to manage a game like Gwent. Except for turning every card into an animated premium. That requires too much work. I really love some of the premiums, but I still think the time could have been better spent by focusing on improving the gameplay.
 
I wanted to make two points. First of all, the challenge of turning classic Gwent into a competitive CCG and why it didn't work out the first time. And secondly, if Homecoming was necessary to save Gwent. For the latter point, I explained that Gwent could have been salvaged. But if the devs wanted to start over, then they should have broken all the shackles that held Gwent back. Instead, we have a solution that's only half way there.

When I have to choose between beta and Homecoming, I would also pick the former. Even though I did like a lot of aspects of Homecoming, it was still a step back, in the beginning. While Homecoming has been vastly improved, over time, it wasn't without other setbacks.

I disagree with the size of Gwent's dev team, though. That's not the problem here. Even a small studio should be able to manage a game like Gwent. Except for turning every card into an animated premium. That requires too much work. I really love some of the premiums, but I still think the time could have been better spent by focusing on improving the gameplay.
Off-topic, I like your mini line or whatever it is (He who fights monsters). Force is strong with you.
Sorry, back to topic. I agree with you.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
I wanted to make two points. First of all, the challenge of turning classic Gwent into a competitive CCG and why it didn't work out the first time. And secondly, if Homecoming was necessary to save Gwent. For the latter point, I explained that Gwent could have been salvaged. But if the devs wanted to start over, then they should have broken all the shackles that held Gwent back. Instead, we have a solution that's only half way there.

When I have to choose between beta and Homecoming, I would also pick the former. Even though I did like a lot of aspects of Homecoming, it was still a step back, in the beginning. While Homecoming has been vastly improved, over time, it wasn't without other setbacks.

I disagree with the size of Gwent's dev team, though. That's not the problem here. Even a small studio should be able to manage a game like Gwent. Except for turning every card into an animated premium. That requires too much work. I really love some of the premiums, but I still think the time could have been better spent by focusing on improving the gameplay.

I was very excited when they announced Gwent originally, as i was already a fan of Witcher 3's version, but i never expected them to recreate it exactly, as it obviously wouldnt work out on an online environment... and yet some people still complain about that.

The part i dont understand from your post, is what exactly are these shackles that are holding Gwent back? The new format that makes it harder to expand, if that's what, i dont see how.

And relatively to the size of Gwent's team - i agree, even a SMALL team should be able to manage it properly in regards to gameplay and basic stuff. So why doesnt that happen? All i see is a huge focus on cosmetics, aesthetics and visual tweaks, while the essential stuff is left untouched.

Maybe im underestimating how hard that task is, but i feel like a single person - whether its me or one of the several users in this forum that also have a good perspective of the game and its problems - could do a better job in a few days (im talking about balancing the existing stuff, not creating new content for expansions which requires a lot more work).
 
Top Bottom