'Price of Power' Expansion REVIEW

[DRK3]

Hello, fellow Gwent players.
I am reviewing the latest expansion for our favourite card game.

I have seen a few articles and posts already, made by single players or teams, that address a few aspects of the expansion, most of which are focused on evaluating the new cards. In this review i will try to address ALL of the aspects i consider relevant, in a multi-part article.

"But the expansion isnt even finished yet, there's still Part 3 left, coming in a couple of months."
That is true, however patience is not one of my strengths and i feel like most of the stuff i want to discuss is already 'set in stone' and wont change with the last part of the expansion, Sub-Exp 7.3. At that time, i will update this review, possibly with new review posts, if i feel that makes the most sense.

Without further ado...

GWENT - PRICE OF POWER (POP) EP 7.1 + 7.2 REVIEW​

PART I - EXPANSION SYSTEM SHIFT: DIVIDING EXPANSIONS IN THREE PARTS

Gwent was officially launched (out of betas) in late 2018 - 'Gwent Homecoming'.
Throughout 2019 and 2020, 6 expansions were released, all with the same format and similar in scale - 70-90 new cards were added on release.

Early 2021, there was a developer stream where the game lead announced they were moving away from this format, and instead the new system would see each expansion divided in 3 equal parts, each launched every 2 months. 'Price of Power' is the first expansion with that format.

By now, we have received the first two sub-expansions: 'Once Upon a Pyre' and 'Thanned Coup'. We can witness the cards of each faction share a theme, aesthetics and mechanics, usually supporting a single archetype of that faction. It definitely feels like one cohesive expansion. Some might argue it could have all been released at the same time...

It could, but i believe this decision by the dev team, to divide the expansion in smaller parts is one of the best they made in years, and i hope they stick to this new system.

When a new set of cards is released, the meta changes very chaotically. Its an exciting period to play, where there's more experimentation and deck variety. Usually, the bigger the new set, the longer that period where the meta feels fresh and isnt settled yet, however there are other factors in this equation, like how complex the new cards are - complex cards, that open up many possibilities might take longer for the playerbase to figure out and optimize.

In the past, there were expansions with only 2-3 months inbetween - for example EP 2 (Novigrad), 3 (Iron Judgment) and 4 (Merchants of Ofir) were all released in the span of 6 months, one can argue there wasnt even enough 'breathing space' between them.
However, that is not the problem, the problem resides when there's 6 months between expansions, which leads to a "drought" of new content, with very long periods of 'stale meta' and where a good portion of the players isnt having fun with Gwent.

This new sub-expansion system keeps that from happening, at least in such a large scale - the meta may still become stale in the last 1-2 weeks of a season (month), but that is way more tolerable than consecutive months with the same metadecks.
Also, the month inbetween these sub-expansions can, and fortunately is, being used to introduce balance patchs, with adjustments to the new cards and buffs to underused old cards.

I do think there is still a lot to improve in the Gwent expansion development, and longstanding issues to fix - however most, if not all, already existed in previous expansions and arent related to this new format.
I definitely approve this format shift, i think it will benefit the game in the longterm, making the meta "stay fresh" more often, which is more important to the health of the game than some might think.
And hope the Gwent team doesnt lose this momentum, and isnt afraid to implement such high-level structural shifts to other flawed systems that could use an upgrade.

 

[EduFerraz]

Well you put your opinion about The expansion sistem (Split by 3).

But I was expexting some review about The New (or not so New) cards, how The New "tags" (patience and sabath) fit in the other cards and things like this

 

[DRK3]

Well you put your opinion about The expansion sistem (Split by 3).

But I was expexting some review about The New (or not so New) cards, how The New "tags" (patience and sabath) fit in the other cards and things like this

Like i said on OP, this review is a multi-part article, each focused on a single aspect of the expansion.

I have planned at least 4 more parts, and one of them is what you're asking - the more traditional review, focusing on the new cards, although this is what other content creators have also done brilliantly, so i feel like its the part of the review where im contributing the least... By now most players already know which are the good and the bad cards.

 

[EduFerraz]

Like i said on OP, this review is a multi-part article, each focused on a single aspect of the expansion.

I have planned at least 4 more parts, and one of them is what you're asking - the more traditional review, focusing on the new cards, although this is what other content creators have also done brilliantly, so i feel like its the part of the review where im contributing the least... By now most players already know which are the good and the bad cards.

Yes, but like you said, here we can talk, discuss, its not The same you view a YouTuber opinion and thats it

 

[jed9653]

Hello, fellow Gwent players.
I am reviewing the latest expansion for our favourite card game.

I have seen a few articles and posts already, made by single players or teams, that address a few aspects of the expansion, most of which are focused on evaluating the new cards. In this review i will try to address ALL of the aspects i consider relevant, in a multi-part article.

"But the expansion isnt even finished yet, there's still Part 3 left, coming in a couple of months."
That is true, however patience is not one of my strengths and i feel like most of the stuff i want to discuss is already 'set in stone' and wont change with the last part of the expansion, Sub-Exp 7.3. At that time, i will update this review, possibly with new review posts, if i feel that makes the most sense.

Without further ado...

View attachment 11244169

GWENT - PRICE OF POWER (POP) EP 7.1 + 7.2 REVIEW​

PART I - EXPANSION SYSTEM SHIFT: DIVIDING EXPANSIONS IN THREE PARTS

Gwent was officially launched (out of betas) in late 2018 - 'Gwent Homecoming'.
Throughout 2019 and 2020, 6 expansions were released, all with the same format and similar in scale - 70-90 new cards were added on release.

Early 2021, there was a developer stream where the game lead announced they were moving away from this format, and instead the new system would see each expansion divided in 3 equal parts, each launched every 2 months. 'Price of Power' is the first expansion with that format.

By now, we have received the first two sub-expansions: 'Once Upon a Pyre' and 'Thanned Coup'. We can witness the cards of each faction share a theme, aesthetics and mechanics, usually supporting a single archetype of that faction. It definitely feels like one cohesive expansion. Some might argue it could have all been released at the same time...

It could, but i believe this decision by the dev team, to divide the expansion in smaller parts is one of the best they made in years, and i hope they stick to this new system.

When a new set of cards is released, the meta changes very chaotically. Its an exciting period to play, where there's more experimentation and deck variety. Usually, the bigger the new set, the longer that period where the meta feels fresh and isnt settled yet, however there are other factors in this equation, like how complex the new cards are - complex cards, that open up many possibilities might take longer for the playerbase to figure out and optimize.

In the past, there were expansions with only 2-3 months inbetween - for example EP 2 (Novigrad), 3 (Iron Judgment) and 4 (Merchants of Ofir) were all released in the span of 6 months, one can argue there wasnt even enough 'breathing space' between them.
However, that is not the problem, the problem resides when there's 6 months between expansions, which leads to a "drought" of new content, with very long periods of 'stale meta' and where a good portion of the players isnt having fun with Gwent.

This new sub-expansion system keeps that from happening, at least in such a large scale - the meta may still become stale in the last 1-2 weeks of a season (month), but that is way more tolerable than consecutive months with the same metadecks.
Also, the month inbetween these sub-expansions can, and fortunately is, being used to introduce balance patchs, with adjustments to the new cards and buffs to underused old cards.

I do think there is still a lot to improve in the Gwent expansion development, and longstanding issues to fix - however most, if not all, already existed in previous expansions and arent related to this new format.
I definitely approve this format shift, i think it will benefit the game in the longterm, making the meta "stay fresh" more often, which is more important to the health of the game than some might think.
And hope the Gwent team doesnt lose this momentum, and isnt afraid to implement such high-level structural shifts to other flawed systems that could use an upgrade.

I definitely like this style of expansion better than previous ones for reasons you mentioned. When things do get stale and I'm bored of the same decks, another mini expansion drops and brings me back in.

I also feel it's easier on new players, who are just focusing on one or two factions, to access the new cards without the overwhelming large pools of new additions that previous expansions had.

Pairing that with how generous the resource system is, makes things even easier. This journey helped me get the last few cards I was missing without skipping a beat on obtaining the new cards.

 

[DRK3]

PART II - KEG SYSTEM SHIFT: EXPANSION KEGS AVAILABILITY

With the shift from big expansions into small sub-expansions, something had to be done about kegs, more specifically expansion kegs.

The dev team had a few options:

- they could make a new keg for each sub-expansion... but then those kegs would only have 26 possible cards, leading to a ton of duplicates, because even though the cardpool is smaller, the chance to get epics or legendaries is still the same.

- they could make an expansion keg, but that would only contain the new cards available so far, and with the release of the following sub-expansions, the cardpool of the keg would expand accordingly... I know very little of programming, but i assume that would be very hard to do, since this wasnt the option they went with.

What they did was the infamous decision to make an expansion keg, with all new cards... but only make it available at the release of the last sub-expansion, 7.3, scheduled for October.

The result? During launch of 7.1 and 7.2, the new cards were obtainable in 3 ways:

A) with luck on ultimate kegs, but those kegs include ALL of the current cardpool, which by now is over 1000 cards, making it very unlikely to get PoP cards, their legendaries even more so.

B) by crafting with scraps. This is easily accessible to veterans or even players who started a few months ago, but were wise to hoard resources in preparation for the expansion... but for real beginners, its much harder without milling cards they dont have dupes.

C) buying the expansion pass that automatically gives all the new cards, without hassle of duplicates.

------------------------------------------------

I believe this whole new keg system is a disaster!
A true shot in the foot of CDPR, because not only was the playerbase affected negatively and unhappy with the outcome, i estimate they hurt themselves even more, in the financial department.

Player perspective:

Long time players with tons of resources will craft the new cards. Personally, i even attempted 100-150 kegs opening, otherwise the ore is just collecting dust, with no other use. But it was a very sad experience, specially for us who remember the joy of opening a ton of kegs on the day of past full expansions, even if we had enough resources to craft everything from the get-go, it was still more fun to open kegs.

CDPR perspective:

On past expansions, the first 2-3 days was likely where the devs profited the most from MTX such as keg sales, probably enough to make up for 3-4 months without new cards that push players to get more kegs.
I used to see very frequently posts about players spending huge amounts of real money on these MTX and they were happy about it, some were even players who didnt need them but wanted to support the game.
I stopped seeing those posts awhile ago, as the trend seems to be to move into less "gamble" content, like Jorney passes or the new expansion pass that instead of kegs, brings the cards.

I am NOT defending MTX or lootboxes, in fact im pratically a F2P despite my thousands of hours in Gwent. But the lootboxes in Gwent, our kegs, are part of the fun and they are obtainable in generous amount without spending real money.
What i hate is the decision to only release the kegs with new cards at the end of the expansion, as it ruins the experience of mass keg opening during 2/3 of the sub-expansions, it isnt reasonable to expect players to spend the 4 months between 7.1 and 7.3 waiting to get the new cards when the kegs are finally released.

And despite the sales of the expansion pass, its probably not enough to make up for the keg sales they lost, and also there wont be many players excited for the new kegs when they're finally released, as almost everyone will probably already have most if not all of the cards from 7.1 and 7.2, so they will only be aiming to 1/3 of the cardpool of that keg.

TL;DR - the expansion keg's new system is awful, a true lose-lose situation.
Hope they change it again for Expansion 8 (starting in December).

 

[DRK3]

PART III - CARD ARTSTYLE DISCREPANCIES

First, of all, let me start by saying im no art expert and there's probably other gwent players out there more qualified than me to speak about this subject. Still, i feel like i need to address it nonetheless.

Gwent's artstyle its one of its trump cards (pun intended), one aspect where its elevated above other CCGs.
Throughout the years, i've come to this forum to criticize Gwent for countless different reasons, and for a countless amount of times, but the art? Never, i've only ever praised it and its artists, as they never let me down... until this expansion.

The first hints that something was off hit me when the first batch of cards were shown, the ones belonging to the first sub-exp., 'Once Upon a Pyre'. A very small number of cards looked weird - they didnt look bad, but they just didnt fit Gwent's artstyle as well as the others.

But the problem only become a debated topic when the 2nd set of cards, for 'Thanedd Coup' was revealed. It was also at this time i realized i wasnt the only one feeling this way, giving me validation, which i needed in this case, considering how subjective this aspect of the game is.

Aretuza Student was the biggest target of criticism, but i think Thanedd Turncoat, Saov Ainmhi'dh, scapegoat or dwimveandra were also pointed out (if they werent, they are being now, by me). I dont hate how these cards look (love the sheep on Dwimveandra ) but they feel out of place - some look like CG instead of handdrawn, others look in the artstyle of a certain CCG competitor.

In other instances (as in, other games), this wouldnt be a big thing, but on Gwent's spotless art track record, it stands out.

This problem's source was later confirmed by the devs themselves, at least to the partners - as suspected, due to time constraints they resorted to outsourcing (probably just partially) the art development for the expansion, which lead to less interaction and quality control between the main team and artists. But fortunately, the Gwent team also admitted it didnt work out as well as they planned, and hopefully will be more careful in the future.

And honestly, that's all im asking for them.
I do not think this was a big mistake, as some players made it seem, and i would cut some slack to the team on this topic.
But i also think it was important to let them know we noticed the small decrease in art quality, in order to make them do something about instead of letting this problem aggravate and spiral down on future sub-expansions, otherwise the Gwent art we all love and cherish could be in jeopardy.

So we will be keep being here for them. It's our duty, as the playerbase, to support the Gwent team with our feedback on the card art we get - praise and applaud when a good work is done, but also provide constructive criticism when its subpar - what's wrong and how to improve it.

 

[betraymechino]

A) with luck on ultimate kegs, but those kegs include ALL of the current cardpool, which by now is over 1000 cards, making it very unlikely to get PoP cards, their legendaries even more so.

Small addition: the PoP cards are also available in faction kegs.
Not that it changes much, but i think it's worth mentioning.

 

[Madlax1992]

Not so sure about the art of Thanedd Turncoat. That is among the better ones. The only ones who felt kinda off a bit are Aretuza Student, Saov and Dwimveandra. Scapegoat's art is ok. The problem with it is that its mechanic is awkward for SY, especially since you have Arena Ghouls.

Saov feels like a rip-off of Thranduil from The Hobbit.

 

[DRK3]

PART IV - THE POWERCREEP IS REAL

power creep (uncountable) (collectible games, video games, role-playing games) The situation where updates to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered.

Obtained from wiktionary.

Powercreep is not something new in Gwent. Even in the betas, i vaguely recall Alzur's Thunder being adjusted from 5 to 7, then to 9 damage, to follow the trend, and i remember 25 base strength units. One of the reasons the game was rebooted, was because the powercreep was getting out of hand, which the devs werent happy about. So why repeat the same mistakes now?

(More Gwent History, you can skip this paragraph)
Ever since the expansions started getting released in Gwent Homecoming, the game was accused of powercreep.
We had OP vampires that were hotfixed in 1 week with Crimson Curse, Syndicate that was absurdly more powerful than other factions when it was introduced (you think now its bad, then it was even worse!), crazy dwarven domination on IJ, which was shortlived, then scenarios were introduced with MoO, which influenced the meta for ages, MM started a period of tier 0 SK warriors, and WotW brought stuff like Viy, Gezras and Kolgrim.

And we arrive to 'Price of Power', the ongoing expansion.

Ever since we got the first look at the cards from 'Once upon a Pyre', the powercreep was undeniable.
Unlike the old patterns, this time the biggest culprits were not expensive golds, but very cheap bronzes. You know what im talking about - Blightmaker + Mage Assassin and Witch apprentice, which became auto includes for their factions, and arguably even made their factions tier 1 material (in case they werent already).

The powercreep is even more blatant, when there were gold cards in this faction that were very similar but more expensive, and thus became obsolete - im referring to Beast - witch apprentices and Albrich - Blightmaker.
And the following month, the suspects were obviously nerfed, with 1 provision more.

With 'Thanedd Coup', a new batch of powercrept cards hit the game.

-Selfeater. This card did something unthinkable - replaced the endrega larvae as the MO auto include bronze, which was known as the best bronze in Gwent for a very long time, possibly longer than any other card was able to remain popular.

-Relicts in general. Despite the powercreep, some MO foundations were able to remain popular despite several expansions coming afterwards. One example was the "classic" Ygghern + Ozzrel combo, which now is completely gone when there's bronzes and cheaper golds providing much more pointslam.

-Scoundrel. Yes, its not just MO up in here. I couldnt believe the statline of this card, if you told me its effect and provisions, my guess was it would have a 5-6, maybe 7 body, cuz powercreep, so i couldnt believe it when it was 12pt, i thought it was an error.

-Mammuna. Ah yes... the motivator of this whole article!
But i didnt come here just to say 'card OP, plz nerf', i got a lot more to say about it:

Despite what i said earlier, the powercreep each expansion wasnt totally linear. The scenarios in particular, were so strong that they resisted the trend and remained very popular even after the next expansions (MM and WotW).
But it was Mammuna that clicked on me and made me think we're finally past that critical point, where scenarios are no longer the best cards for each faction.
NG Ball and NR Siege are stll somewhat popular, which can be explained by the fact they are control focused, inherently more valuable than pointslam. The other 4 scenarios are more pointslam, and now they're finally getting outdated thanks to the new cards.
Why play Haunt or Gedyneith, that roughly give around 20pts when Mammuna does the same, for less and in 1 turn instead of 3, also provides thinning (yes, requires setup, but a very easy setup)?

This made me look closer to the current popular metadecks (for example, the ones used in Open qualifiers recently) and realize most of those decks dont use scenarios anymore but they're able to dish out more points in other ways, usually relying on new cards.

Why is this powercreep a problem?
Personally, the answer to me is very easy - by definition, powercreep pushes the gameplay away from the almighty, ever-out-of-reach, ultimate state of... "BALANCED".
For those that dont know, i am (an annoying) paladin of balance, considering it the ultimate goal that the Gwent devs should always strive for, but i realize and accept not everyone feels the same way.

Still, there's another problem - the powercreep is being introduced VOLUNTARILY. If you followed Gwent's journ...i mean trajectory and heard the dev streams, its hard to argue against my claim.
The most likely reason - financial profit, direct or indirect. If the new cards are better, everyone will want them, need them, so more keg sales, players playing more time.
This is wrong IMO, yet reasonable, after all CDPR is a company and their goal is profit. However i dont think its working, after all the gwent economy is very generous and F2P friendly, so the result is imbalance is being generated, creating more frustration for the playerbase in short term, which leads to a less healthy gamestate in the longterm, and for what? No benefits for anyone.

My suggestion? The hard road - create new cards, that are the same power as the previous, but more interesting, with total new mechanics to make the gameplay fresh and stay fresh.

Post automatically merged: Aug 19, 2021

Another very interesting case of powercreep (which i hate):

Gord.

It was already pretty silly when a 7pr card was carrying several archetypes, and getting huge 13-16pt finishers.
Now those are rookie numbers (words spoken by the Casters of the latest qualifiers, which i make mine), Gord is getting 20-25pts!

This card wasnt buffed directly, but the powercreep, in this case not in points (im not saying the ST bronzes are OP and need nerfs), but in making it easier to play way more specials, makes Gord so much stronger, so perhaps now he finally gets the provision adjustment he should have already undergone?

(and yes, im very salty with spellatael, the only deck i havent won once against this season. Even on two occasions, i managed to have last say and a counter to the obvious Gord, rubbing my hands, "I got this in the bag", only to be soulcrushed and still lose...

 

[quintivarium]

This is an interesting history of power creep with some excellent examples. But you missed what I consider the most detrimental of the power crept cards — what I describe as remove or lose cards. When I started playing Gwent over a year and half ago, there was one such card (Cahil). Sense then they have added the likes of Gezras, Koshchey, Archgriffin, Kildare, Kolgrim, Vypper, Idarran, She Who Knows, Witchfinder, Francesca, Melusine, Bloody Mistress, Foltest, Selfeater, Witch Apprentice, Ban Ard Student, Unseen Elder, Brouver…. The big problems with this trend are: the cards are very binary (either you have an answer or you lose) and they force more, bigger removal (the boosts of many units to 6 strength also contributes here). And more removal means fewer units survive on the board so there is less to strategically interact with. And it drives the meta toward immediate value cards, which again reduces the amount of strategic interaction.

 

[Bleach25]

PART IV - THE POWERCREEP IS REAL


Obtained from wiktionary.

Powercreep is not something new in Gwent. Even in the betas, i vaguely recall Alzur's Thunder being adjusted from 5 to 7, then to 9 damage, to follow the trend, and i remember 25 base strength units. One of the reasons the game was rebooted, was because the powercreep was getting out of hand, which the devs werent happy about. So why repeat the same mistakes now?

(More Gwent History, you can skip this paragraph)
Ever since the expansions started getting released in Gwent Homecoming, the game was accused of powercreep.
We had OP vampires that were hotfixed in 1 week with Crimson Curse, Syndicate that was absurdly more powerful than other factions when it was introduced (you think now its bad, then it was even worse!), crazy dwarven domination on IJ, which was shortlived, then scenarios were introduced with MoO, which influenced the meta for ages, MM started a period of tier 0 SK warriors, and WotW brought stuff like Viy, Gezras and Kolgrim.

And we arrive to 'Price of Power', the ongoing expansion.

Ever since we got the first look at the cards from 'Once upon a Pyre', the powercreep was undeniable.
Unlike the old patterns, this time the biggest culprits were not expensive golds, but very cheap bronzes. You know what im talking about - Blightmaker + Mage Assassin and Witch apprentice, which became auto includes for their factions, and arguably even made their factions tier 1 material (in case they werent already).

The powercreep is even more blatant, when there were gold cards in this faction that were very similar but more expensive, and thus became obsolete - im referring to Beast - witch apprentices and Albrich - Blightmaker.
And the following month, the suspects were obviously nerfed, with 1 provision more.

With 'Thanedd Coup', a new batch of powercrept cards hit the game.

-Selfeater. This card did something unthinkable - replaced the endrega larvae as the MO auto include bronze, which was known as the best bronze in Gwent for a very long time, possibly longer than any other card was able to remain popular.

-Relicts in general. Despite the powercreep, some MO foundations were able to remain popular despite several expansions coming afterwards. One example was the "classic" Ygghern + Ozzrel combo, which now is completely gone when there's bronzes and cheaper golds providing much more pointslam.

-Scoundrel. Yes, its not just MO up in here. I couldnt believe the statline of this card, if you told me its effect and provisions, my guess was it would have a 5-6, maybe 7 body, cuz powercreep, so i couldnt believe it when it was 12pt, i thought it was an error.

-Mammuna. Ah yes... the motivator of this whole article!
But i didnt come here just to say 'card OP, plz nerf', i got a lot more to say about it:

Despite what i said earlier, the powercreep each expansion wasnt totally linear. The scenarios in particular, were so strong that they resisted the trend and remained very popular even after the next expansions (MM and WotW).
But it was Mammuna that clicked on me and made me think we're finally past that critical point, where scenarios are no longer the best cards for each faction.
NG Ball and NR Siege are stll somewhat popular, which can be explained by the fact they are control focused, inherently more valuable than pointslam. The other 4 scenarios are more pointslam, and now they're finally getting outdated thanks to the new cards.
Why play Haunt or Gedyneith, that roughly give around 20pts when Mammuna does the same, for less and in 1 turn instead of 3, also provides thinning (yes, requires setup, but a very easy setup)?

This made me look closer to the current popular metadecks (for example, the ones used in Open qualifiers recently) and realize most of those decks dont use scenarios anymore but they're able to dish out more points in other ways, usually relying on new cards.

Why is this powercreep a problem?
Personally, the answer to me is very easy - by definition, powercreep pushes the gameplay away from the almighty, ever-out-of-reach, ultimate state of... "BALANCED".
For those that dont know, i am (an annoying) paladin of balance, considering it the ultimate goal that the Gwent devs should always strive for, but i realize and accept not everyone feels the same way.

Still, there's another problem - the powercreep is being introduced VOLUNTARILY. If you followed Gwent's journ...i mean trajectory and heard the dev streams, its hard to argue against my claim.
The most likely reason - financial profit, direct or indirect. If the new cards are better, everyone will want them, need them, so more keg sales, players playing more time.
This is wrong IMO, yet reasonable, after all CDPR is a company and their goal is profit. However i dont think its working, after all the gwent economy is very generous and F2P friendly, so the result is imbalance is being generated, creating more frustration for the playerbase in short term, which leads to a less healthy gamestate in the longterm, and for what? No benefits for anyone.

My suggestion? The hard road - create new cards, that are the same power as the previous, but more interesting, with total new mechanics to make the gameplay fresh and stay fresh.

Post automatically merged: Aug 19, 2021

Another very interesting case of powercreep (which i hate):

Gord.

It was already pretty silly when a 7pr card was carrying several archetypes, and getting huge 13-16pt finishers.
Now those are rookie numbers (words spoken by the Casters of the latest qualifiers, which i make mine), Gord is getting 20-25pts!

This card wasnt buffed directly, but the powercreep, in this case not in points (im not saying the ST bronzes are OP and need nerfs), but in making it easier to play way more specials, makes Gord so much stronger, so perhaps now he finally gets the provision adjustment he should have already undergone?

(and yes, im very salty with spellatael, the only deck i havent won once against this season. Even on two occasions, i managed to have last say and a counter to the obvious Gord, rubbing my hands, "I got this in the bag", only to be soulcrushed and still lose...

Melusine decks still use gedyneith and I've seen some Spella'tael with Feign Death

 

[yeahalright]

Feign Death gets used all the time with Seplla'tael, because you can play the whisperer on the waylay round and get mad value if you have some orbs ready to be procc'd.

 

[jed9653]

I get power creep to an extent, but what bugs me most about it is when it clearly leaves cards in the pits of hell (like how blightmaker did to albrich). If you are going to blatantly make a card or combo better than an existing one, especially making a bronze better than a gold in this case, then at least rework the gold into something else or tune it so it can still have value worthy of being called a gold card

 

[DRK3]

Melusine decks still use gedyneith and I've seen some Spella'tael with Feign Death

My bad, i re-read what i wrote and i probably didnt express my vision was well as i thought.

I dont consider Scenarios obsolete, they're definitely still really good (some a little better than others).
But for example, the ones you mentioned: Gedyneith's popularity can be explained by its synergy with the new cards from PoP, however no SK have been used in Opens and qualifiers lately, and the ones that did were reckless flurry control lists.

The other - Feign Death is popular, again because it also synergizes with a lot of the new PoP cards, from part 1 and part 2, but also because ST doesnt have access to other insane ways of pointslam like MO or NG (with the exception of Gord, which is a different case, and one i already talked about here)

Passiflora isnt being used, Haunt is definitely not being used, and even Masquerade Ball, the most expensive card in the game, the one that dictated the meta for over a year, can still be found but probably less than ever, playing 2nd fiddle to tactical decision and hyperthin +pointslam lists.

 

[DRK3]

(Note: this is last planned part of this review, until PoP third sub-expansion is launched)

PART V - NEW CARDS META INFLUENCE

It's almost guaranteed that when an expansion is released, the meta will enter a chaotic state of experimentation and exploration, that wil take days or even weeks to stabilize. A lot of new cards tend to replace the old ones (the powercreep i wrote about in the previous review section), however there's a few that see no play right from the get-go.

A lot of streamers and partners have already made new card analysis, charts, guides. I dont intend to do the same. So, instead of going card-by-card, i will go faction-by-faction, and go deeper than just saying what's strong and weak.

-NORTHERN REALMS
This was one of the few factions that got new mechanics with the new cards, NR got 'Patience'.
Patience has a lot of overlap with the mage archetype (if it can be called that), and its an engine mechanic. I immediately (when the first NR cards from 'Once Upon a Pyre' were shown) said this was gonna be a failure, like sending lambs to slaughter.

I was partially correct - NR actually got a huge boost in popularity with PoP Pt.1... but it was not caused by the new cards, but for the reworked Shani, the revitalized Siege and Gerhart, which yes, its one of the new cards, but 90+% of the times, his ability is used on the turn he's played, just as a great midrange card.

The 2nd part of PoP saw no real "winners" on NR, except their use on the fun archgriffin meme deck, but the competitive NR lists remain unchanged. And i fear part 3 will repeat this pattern, with more NR patience + mages that cant really compete with the rest.

-SKELLIGE
SK got support for cultist/ druids archetype, and tried to add a new associated facet with the rain/ storm.
The 1st part had a greater focus on the rain aspect, and although interesting, weather isnt an effective form of removal, suffers from slow tempo and easily wastes potential, so the 4 new cards didnt really enter the meta.

The 2nd part got more varied cards, but the prevalence of Heatwave / Yen Invo keeps Melusine (the new SK legendary) from shining, like it has done to all other decks built around an expensive engine/ combo piece.

-NILFGAARD
NG is a unique case actually. In the sense that got two very different sets in part 1 and part 2, each supporting a different archetype. I like this a lot, i consider it a better approach than making a whole new archetype... that sucks. What i dont like is how, overall, NG seems to always get the better end of the deal, but i'll leave my personal opinions out of this post.

PoP part 1 brought the infamous 'skilful manipulation' to NG, that ended up being nothing more than insanely overtuned cards that fitted in every deck (and can still be found easily, even after nerf and after a new set of cards came out). I am glad that part 2 didnt bring more of that and instead it brought support to the spies archetype, which has a lot... well, maybe not a lot, but a few devoted fans from a long time ago. I do believe this archetype is sufficiently fleshed out, and hope for a new focus on PoP part 3.

-SCOIATAEL
ST in PoP has been an underdog story so far. The first set of 4 cards was received very poorly, shunned by the faction fans, mocked by everyone.
However, the 2nd batch, despite its initial negative reception (including my own), actually was able to reverse the perception players had of it, and converted a lot to the wonders of Spellatael (not me, but im glad to see something bad getting improved).

Even more - it was even able to bring back some of the cards of the 1st batch into respectable playrates, the ones they never had not even when they were first released. Still, i think this archetype can be specially problematic with balancing, so im fearful with what they come up with for Pt.3 (which is likely more spellatael support).

-MONSTERS
I admit - i was wrong. I never anticipated the popularity Sabbath would get, at least when the first new cards were revealed for Pt.1.
I thought pointslam cards with no interaction with the opponent would be devoured by control lists... but it turn out, when the pointslam is so great and easy, not even hypercontrol will be able to keep it in check.

But while Pt.1 had one big culprit of being OP - witch apprentice - Pt.2 had 3 (i dont need to tell you which ones by now).
Seeing MO on the top of the meta (maybe tied with SY) is quite unusual, i can only remember two instances in HC - the initial period, where thrive and tall monsters dominated, and that time where Dethlaff HV with Overwhelming Hunger was all the rage. I personally like MO, but i dont think its a good symptom for balance when MO is doing so well (*insert long 'dumbing down' rant)

-SYNDICATE
SY got bounty support. In 'Once Upon a Pyre', and now more recently on 'Thanedd Coup'. (and likely on the upcoming part)
I think the 1st batch for bounty support was nice, the 2nd? A mistake. SY should have got the same treatment as NG, and on the 2nd (and 3rd) sub-expansions, get support for different archetypes.

Why? Because bounty doesnt need more support. It doesnt matter how many new amazing bounty cards are added, SY is already packed with amazing control options other factions dream they had, which enabled its domination since the leader update brought Cleaver and Whoreson Jr. If the new cards arent seeing much play, its because SY already has even better, faster, easier control cards that are very unlikely to get replaced without nerfing them. The SY reign will continue, for how long, we shall see...

 

[DRK3]

Reviving this thread earlier than anticipated, in order to share a link to a poll @Lion.hart created recently, and its important we get as many answers as possible. The poll ends 30th September, and at that time LionHart will send it directly to the devs.

The subject is the current expansion cycle - if you think the current 2-month cycle for new cards is better, or if you prefer the old 6-month cycle or something in between.

Gwent's Expansion Cycle

docs.google.com

I wont share my opinion for now (although its already exposed on the review i made for this thread), nor Lionhart's in order to minimize influencing the poll results, but i will post them later if relevant discussion is generated.

Thank you.

 

[quintivarium]

Thank you for spreading word on this poll. When I first encountered it, I neither understood its relevance or the nuance behind how one answers. It is apparent that Lionhart (and many others) believe the developers will take the responses seriously as they plot the future course of Gwent. It is predicated on the assumption that the developers care about the game and its players (from my perspective a reasonable assumption as success of the game is their bread and butter). And Lionhart, in his recent twitch stream as discussed how much of what we might complain about with the state of Gwent now is a result of developers responding to player requests.

I also, until listening to a Lionhart stream, did not think through the consequences of the choices made. Assume resources, especially developer time, is limited to a level roughly equivalent to what we are currently seeing. Also be realistic — new products must be monitized for the game to survive. If players won’t spend money for new cards and cosmetics, work on the game is infeasible.

Thus, frequent card drops will mean fewer cards per drop, or fewer resources for new cosmetics, improving draft mode, balance patches, etc. The need to monetize means players have to want cards when they are released. If new card drops are smaller and more frequent then the following consequences seem likely: more developer time is required to promote the drop, more power creep occurs as the few cards released must be strong enough to carry themselves, new archetypes are hard to develop as small numbers of cards are insufficient to carry an archetype, each meta is smaller as successful decks (which tend to revolve around the newest cards) have a smaller pool of viable archetypes to be based upon, there is less time to achieve a good sense of balance before new cards enter to disrupt the balance, there is no good way to incorporate expansion based kegs.

On the other hand, infrequent card drops tend to result in long standing periods of the same meta (which gets stale for many), long term domination of certain factions / archetypes, a sense of separation between developers and community, less total time spent experimenting with new material, fewer periods of high excitement about the game, greater vulnerability to an expansion that flops, etc.

I encourage everyone to respond to Lionhart’s poll, but to think through the long term consequences of your answer first.

 

[DRK3]

Posting here Lion.hart 's video on the results of his poll (which i shared on this thread), which he sent to CDPR:

I do hope it improves the communication channels between the devs and their playerbase, however i also want to discuss another issue:

The Gwent team loves to release expansions on December.
Last year we had 'Way of the Witcher'. On 2019 we had 'Merchants of Ofir'. And this year, at least on the roadmap they released earlier this year it mentions an EP 8.1 for December, although they may have changed plans inbetween.

Like Lionhart points out in the video, this has lead to many problems, since the team goes on xmas holidays/ vacation at the end of Dec. / beginning of Jan., so there's no patch or hotfix to fix any broken things, and broken things have popped up during this period (most have probably heard about the Midwinter "incident" of 2017, while Gwent was still in beta).

Im not suggesting they shouldnt have their due time off work obviously. But it feels like a greedy move that has not been pointed out by the community (as far as i know). You see, these December drops arent random - videogames are known to be released more often at the end of year due to Christmas and other holidays, where people spend more money on gifts... this includes live games such as Gwent having events or expansions to have their players spend more than usual in this profitable period (and also players having extra time to play during these cheerful times, which is correlated with money spent).

TL;DR: It feels like CDPR wants to reap the benefits from a Xmas drop, but not deal with the consequences it brings.

 

[DRK3]

I return to this topic, soon i shall post here the final review of the PoP expansion - i wont do it just yet as it will be quite long and also require quite a bit of research. I will do this later today or tomorrow.

I will bring an angle that i havent seen brought up yet ever, when other partners or players are evaluating PoP's effect and what it means for Gwent's future.

Feel free to comment now and share your final opinions of PoP as well, before my biblical post