2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]

[Lilith95]

Sorry, about my english, guys, there will be lots of mistakes but I hope that my opinion will be understandable.

Idea about 2 rows on each players side became reality when reddit was full of massages about crying how small cards are on board and how it is terrible. Two months after mid-winter update there wasnt anything else on reddit, just "small card art posts" and "mechanics dumbed" posts.

Guys, do you know how CDPR devs must feel? They are just human beings as we are. They are trying to find sollutions to many problems and you should try to be little open-minded. Before mid-winder update many many players were mad about how the game is difficult for new players and how Gwent should be more friendly to have more players. 2 months of these types of posts on reddit and then we had mid-winter (mechanics gone, game easy to understand).

I know that you probably wont like my opinion but try to think before you post something. If you think about it, Devs are doing everything what players wanted to have. So be patient, wait until we see first looks, it might not take so long because we were promised that we will get first info after E3. E3 is 12-15 June.

At the end, I must say that I am also rather sceptic about 2 rows on each side and 2 bronze cards limit but lets wait until we see how it look like in game. They already have other ideas that they are working around and we still dont have informations about it. When we will get those informations, 2x2 rows could be a great idea.

 

[TheNotoriousThree]

It's only for tokens and his goal is not limiting swarm. And combining bronzes has nothing to do with the number of rows.

I know it's to not limit swarm but that doesn't change the fact that it's a step in the wrong direction. About combining bronzes, I was thinking of the bronze card restriction of 2 copies when I typed that, I just realized that I mentioned it in the wrong context or just forgot to mention that copy restriction, apologies for that.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Idea about 2 rows on each players side became reality when reddit was full of massages about crying how small cards are on board and how it is terrible. Two months after mid-winter update there wasnt anything else on reddit, just "small card art posts" and "mechanics dumbed" posts.

So why we didnt saw this posts in the Forums? ( i am not at reddit so only read Forum) and more important: Why change a gamemechanic for artwork? We are in beta, CDRed can ASK in the forum, how we would like this or other ideas. Better artworks are fine, i dont need it thought but its fine, IF they dont dumb down the already dumbed down game. But if you announce a totally different game after the worst Update in the Gwent-History, what they expect? They once told they have a bigger plan in mind, i heavily doubt that, because the just switch with every trend here (and reddit). They just stop with switching, for my bad.

 

[Shadow-Stalker]

That's a flawed comparison. People in this forum are clearly hardcore. And it's obvious how they don't like the idea.
But you have no idea if a casual prefer 2 or 3 rows, or if he don't care at all. Ultimately you may not care about it but this game needs to attract new players with homecoming, if it fails in this it will be the end.

If a more appealing visual is what it takes, so be it. Especially if as a bonus you get 4 rows that actually have a meaning.

Again, as I and many others have said, you don't build a game for the casuals that play once a week and will move on to the next big thing as soon as it releases. They don't pay the bills. They don't commit to the game.

WE - DO!

If you don't stick to your identity, no one will stick to you.

Which is why what homecoming really needed to do was bring back all of the hardcore fans and pro players that quit because of the direction Gwent has taken in recent times.

 

[Guest 4021160]

WE - DO!

WE GOT IT ALREADY. YOU'RE ANGRY.

 

[Void_Singer]

Again, as I and many others have said, you don't build a game for the casuals that play once a week and will move on to the next big thing as soon as it releases. They don't pay the bills. They don't commit to the game.

actually they do pay the bills... it's just simple numbers... there are ridiculously more "casual" players than there are "hardcore".... doesn't matter if they stick around, because there are just so many of them. Personally I can't say I'm excited for ANY of the announced changes... in fact I find them depressing. but it doesn't really matter what I think, because the criteria for success isn't my opinion... it's whether they can draw in crowds, and specifically new crowds.

 

[Udalryk]

criteria for financial* success

In CDPR's situation, appealing to casual players is of course the easiest way to financial success. But there is definitely at least a couple other ways.
But they have Witcher, Thronebreaker and Cyberpunk coming up, which all are/will be mostly played by casual players. Why not then make Gwent multiplayer for more hardcore players? You can even release Thronebreaker with 2-2 rows if you like, and have multiplayer be 3-3. This won't really matter that much, since cards won't have same abilities.
The game itself doesn't have to be that complex, and can still be deep (example: Chess). Removing 2 rows is like removing 5% complexity and 70% depth. Similar things can be said about limiting all Bronzes to 2 copies.

 

[sfruzz]

Casual players are not the only playerbase.

Let's take a complex game such as Paradox Development Studio's Europa Universalis. That's for sure something that a lot of casual players would not enjoy! The UI is not welcoming. The tutorial can only scratch the surface of all game features. It requires hundreds of hours just to complete a single game. Still, it's a working franchise with tons of DLCs. It has been so successful that the same concept has been applied to a different lore (Stellaris).

What I'm trying to say is that there is market, and hence profit, for complex games.You don't have to be the number one game on Twitch to succeed.

In CDPR's situation, appealing to casual players is of course the easiest way to financial success.

I think that for the cardgames that quota of the market is already taken by other developers.
Appealing to causal players could actually prove harder and riskier than appealing to a different audience.

 

[Udalryk]

sfruzz But it's just a lot harder to make a more complex game succeed in the same way a more casual game would. Look at Dota 2, a completely free game, a lot better and a lot more complex than its counterpart LoL, descendant of the original instigator of "mobas", DotA; but still has a considerably smaller player base than LoL.

Something else CDPR must be pretty acutely aware of is Artifact, that will probably eat up a lot of the same player group that a more complex Gwent would focus on. This whole situation is a bit unfortunate, unfortunately. Of course I don't care about making a huge profit, and I hope CDPR will instead try making huge profit with other games, and make Gwent multiplayer a great game, regardless of its lesser share of the card game market.

 

[sfruzz]

Udalryk Dota 2 occupies a segment of the market, LoL occupies another. They can both thrive. The fact that they have a different playerbase, interested in different aspects of the game is what makes the coexistence possible. If you compare HotS with LoL you'll see that a more casual-friendly game does not mean a larger playerbase. Actually HotS and LoL compete for the same share of the market. Plus, if the developers of Dota 2 were to reduce the complexity of their game doesn't mean that a lot of LoL players would join...

So going back to cardgames, I think that there is a group of players who are interested in a game like Gwent and would not necessary be interested in a simplified version. Gwent can coexist with other big names, as long as it retains its identity.

 

[DMaster2]

Again, as I and many others have said, you don't build a game for the casuals that play once a week and will move on to the next big thing as soon as it releases. They don't pay the bills. They don't commit to the game.

WE - DO!

If you don't stick to your identity, no one will stick to you.

Which is why what homecoming really needed to do was bring back all of the hardcore fans and pro players that quit because of the direction Gwent has taken in recent times.

They don't pay the bills? You would be amazing by how much money casuals throw at games, even if their attention span isn't long.
On the contrary, unless we are talking about whales, you won't make as much money from long time players, since at a certain point they'll have everything they may want.

Oh and gwent identity isn't 3 rows nor 3 bronze copies. Those are merely mechanics. Gwent identity is the skill based gameplay (which should return according to devs), the mature lore and artwork (which should return according to devs) and the witcher universe. As long we get this at homecoming along a great game to play they did their job.

 

[Thunderscape]

Udalryk Dota 2 occupies a segment of the market, LoL occupies another. They can both thrive. The fact that they have a different playerbase, interested in different aspects of the game is what makes the coexistence possible. If you compare HotS with LoL you'll see that a more casual-friendly game does not mean a larger playerbase. Actually HotS and LoL compete for the same share of the market. Plus, if the developers of Dota 2 were to reduce the complexity of their game doesn't mean that a lot of LoL players would join...

So going back to cardgames, I think that there is a group of players who are interested in a game like Gwent and would not necessary be interested in a simplified version. Gwent can coexist with other big names, as long as it retains its identity.

Very well put.

Gwent is comparable to Dota, and Heartstone to LoL. Pretty much that.

 

[Void_Singer]

Udalryk
I don't actually believe it boils down to just financial success... it's certainly part of it, but if they want longevity and brand presence they need numbers... the hardcore subset isn't enough. I don't like where things seem to be going, but the business considerations are the rule.

 

[TheNotoriousThree]

They already tried attracting casual players and we all know how that went. If they had any sense left or if they learned the slightest thing from the past they would not even think about the ridiculous changes they are thinking about.

I wish I knew a way to help them get their sh* straight because they are about to kill Gwent.

People want Gwent to go back to its roots CDPR, they don't want a generic yet maybe good game that looks similar to Gwent. We want Gwent and we want it to be balanced, period. Stop making bad decisions just because you want to attract casuals or make the damn card art shine. Nobody cares about that as much as about the games true identity. You call it Homecoming so do it some justice for the love of Gwent. 2 rows? 2 bronze copies? Tokens that stack because of the stupid limitations you're making "for the amazing card art"? Don't make me laugh. Yes I'm salty now. The entire loyal Gwent community should be, this is a gigantic slap in the face.

 

[devivre]

Being critical about the game is okay but please avoid attacking users on a personal level.
It won't help this discussion.
One post removed!

 

[Burza46]

2 rows because of "amazing card art"?

Well, I am not most up-to-date on what's going on for Homecoming development. Is it true that CPDR wants 2x2 rows because of "amazing card art"?
Does not sound rational at all. Will this drive sales/retention with bigger art?

To some point, I think that 'can' be a legitimate reason if they think 2x2 row is good due smaller mobile screen; but I think smaller screen is still big enough if they optimize existing 3x2 board placement.

If CDPR goes 2x2, there must be some great new mechanic that to compensate on removing an important choice when player plays -- the choice of which row to develop. The current point spam meta is already very stale, as players feel the game kinda play itself, removing a 2x1 rows will even feel worse.

Maybe there is some great new mechanics that CDPR is developing (preferred row is great, but, not enough). Oh dear hive mind, if there is let me know.

We are not going for two rows just because of card art, the game simply plays better and we can make two unique rows, which influence how you play the cards and the rows you place them on.

 

[Shadow-Stalker]

They already tried attracting casual players and we all know how that went. If they had any sense left or if they learned the slightest thing from the past they would not even think about the ridiculous changes they are thinking about.

I wish I knew a way to help them get their sh* straight because they are about to kill Gwent.

I wish so hard sometimes, my eye starts bulging out. We all know deep down the ideology of Gwent is dead, regardless if homecoming some how brings in a sustainable amount of players. (With a artifact and others coming I seriously doubt it)

We are not going for two rows just because of card art, we can make two unique rows, which influence how you play the cards and the rows you place them on.

You mean like before you destroyed the row identity and made a huge mistake changing weather and then also made another huge mistake testing out more agile units... only to make another consecutive mistake by removing row locks altogether?

The systems that defined Gwent and inherently set an intelligent, subjective restriction on deck building without an artificial limit being placed? Which is also something you plan to force... right?

Hmm. Interesting thought process there. Instead of accepting fault and bringing back the flavour of your game- just ignore it altogether and change different stuff in a different way to undo the previous changes you made. Because that has gone down well each time you tried already, hasn't it?

 

[Kaczor79]

We are not going for two rows just because of card art, the game simply plays better and we can make two unique rows, which influence how you play the cards and the rows you place them on.

Could you explain that, how game play is better with two rows? Because i am really sceptical for the change.

 

[G4merY]

Well, let them give it a try. We don't know how it might turn out.

CDPR said that they will be making the rows specific, and certain cards will gain boosts or benefits from it. Aesthetics is the primary reason, yes, specially because what we call cards are less than the size of a postage stamp on our screens. But the row-restrictions will bring another layer of complexity to the game, like how it was during early Open Beta, and in The Wild Hunt. So, just because a row is removed, doesn't necessarily means that the game will lose its complexity.

Moreover, someone needs to divide all 700+ cards into Melee, Range and Machine groups. If the Range+Machine cards are about the same number as the Melee cards, then it makes sense to merge the Range and Machine rows. From my experience, I think there're nearly as many Melee/human/soldier cards as Range/archer/mage/Machine cards.

The game is definitely unfinished, specially visually, in its current state. So, an overhaul is necessary. Even if it changes the game a bit too much, it's a worthy risk. In fact, I hope that they change it into something that's simple, and more fun.

 

[Kaczor79]

it's a worthy risk. In fact, I hope that they change it into something that's simple, and more fun.

For someone maybe this is fun but in fact, i want to know from which of height i have jump to running river.