2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]

[Captainkrueger]

You proved to us that you have the stones to announce homecoming. I commend you for that. Now can you prove you are looking for a "thinking man" in the crowd and try to create a game for him. There are enough glitter around for others.

I raise my hat to this, mister

 

[Thunderscape]

As I posted elsewhere, what does actually a third row adds that can't be done with two rows?

Two rows are qualitatively different than one row, because it allows you to play around cards, like Igni or weather. And it allows rows to have different effects (a more aggressive melee row and a more defensive siege row, for example). But what about 3 rows, is there anything you can do on 3 rows that you can't do on 2 rows?

I mean, I guess you can play more around Igni or weather, but how often does that really matter? If you have a 15 power unit on hand and a 15 power one on board, it is good to be able to play them on different rows, but if you have two 15 power units on board and one on hand, well, maybe you should have planned better in the first place.

Some cards like Slave Infantry, you would be able to spawn only two units, not 3? And cards like rotten ale would work differently. But does that make so much strategic difference after all?

Lots of stuff.

Weather, movement synergies either by messing with the opponent rows or by moving around on my own rows(Monsters and ST respectively). Lacerates/gignis and tech cards like those are now limited in the future. And of course the other mistake 9 limit per row... now you can only have 18 cards on the board. There goes swarm decks.

Oh and row identity. Theres not really much point without 3 rows.

Again, a Core mechaninc getting gutted not because of gameplay reasons but because the UI demands it.

Well, if the developers themselves are willing to take such a big risk, then it must be worth it...since they've the most knowledge about their game. They must be seeing some big problems with the current version of the game. Anyone who has played the current version of Gwent will agree that it is anything but a finished product.

It has arena/casual/ranked, it had plenty of tournaments. Its a finished product. In my eyes its just not a good product right now.

Maybe they wish to balance it forever instead of having to hear complaints about nerfing certain cards at the end of each month. Let's be honest, a lot of cards and gameplay has changed due to these complaints, some of which weren't even fair (locks are mostly irrelevant, instead of being a core game feature. People complaining about Scorch, Wardancer, CA cards). Perhaps this is what CDPR was referring to when they mentioned that the game isn't turning out the way they originally intended it to. Because when you don't make the desired changes, you're accused of not showing support, or having a dead IP. And any change that you make will always upset a small chunk of your player-base. It's just unnecessary hardwork.

The removal of row identity, limit the number of row cards to 9, several gold cards that needed a rework after the gold patch ,removing fun archtypes for more simple ones, the create mechanic etc was also met with backlash from the community. And ignored.
A dev must choose wich feedback is valuable. And more often than not the beta and PTR were pretty much useless. Or else we wouldnt be on this situation.

Or maybe they're trying to simplify it while keeping it complicated enough, so that they can make a physical card-game out of it (probably not).

Nah probably not. More for a mobile version.
And if i want a simple game i already have one the market. Well established. That route will lead to nowhere.

Or maybe this Homecoming is just a cheap, marketing strategy to keep the players from stop playing Gwent and move on to other card games. (I doubt this one, simply because it's CDPR.) CCG market is tough!

No, CDPR wouldnt do that. This is a honest start over, because things didnt turn out the way anyone wanted. Or almost anyone.

All of this is mostly speculation, of course, highly influenced by what I think. I don't know what's really true, as I'm not a psychic. But the good news is that if this Homecoming doesn't works out, going back to what we currently have would be the easiest thing. Swap that with having a possibility, and not exploring it. This is why such bold moves should always be supported, specially in science and creative industries.

Im afraid if it fails it will fail hard. This is at least for me, a last chance. But if it turns out bad, im out.
Now i agree with you that this sort of move should be praised. It worked wonders for FFXIV. Its pretty much the same situation. But the crew that picked up FFXIV learned from past mistakes and listened to the community and that is key in having a successfull re-launch.

 

[Ic3Purple]

Another draft of a possible rework to improve card size on the board without cutting the 3d row (in this occasion I did spend some time on making it look a bit "decent" compared to the previous).

 

[Thunderscape]

 

[Ic3Purple]

@Thunderscape

Yeah, there are a lot of possibilitie of repositioning items and tools on the board and maintain the 3 rows. Just like yours for example. But we aren't paid to show any final product eheh. Just trying to help with good will

 

[G4merY]

It has arena/casual/ranked, it had plenty of tournaments. Its a finished product. In my eyes its just not a good product right now.

You're just naming features. It's certainly not a finished product, and it certainly lacks the polish of one. But then, it's my opinion against yours, I suppose.

A dev must choose wich feedback is valuable.

Of course.

More for a mobile version.

Or a mobile version, yeah. The mobile-gaming market is filled with idiots (no offense) who spend more on a mobile game than the price of a AAA game title, and any gaming company would wish to tap that. Besides, a bigger player-base is always welcome, and mobile means that I can play the game anywhere, anytime.

This is at least for me, a last chance. But if it turns out bad, im out.

You should be out. These online games are very addictive, and demanding. And not as much giving as a concise AAA title. Everyone should quit eventually. Been a Gwent player for the past 10 years certainly cannot be a boast. Conquer, and move on.

But the crew that picked up FFXIV learned from past mistakes and listened to the community and that is key in having a successfull re-launch.

Listening to your heart, intuition or gut could also be a key. Specially when you've such a diverse community feedback as Gwent's. It isn't like Assassin's Creed (the original game), where everyone was criticising about the same thing. A lot of players only want changes with what they're facing problems with, so that they can top the leaderboard.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Lots of stuff.

Weather, movement synergies either by messing with the opponent rows or by moving around on my own rows(Monsters and ST respectively). Lacerates/gignis and tech cards like those are now limited in the future. And of course the other mistake 9 limit per row... now you can only have 18 cards on the board. There goes swarm decks.

Oh and row identity. Theres not really much point without 3 rows.

Again, a Core mechaninc getting gutted not because of gameplay reasons but because the UI demands it.

Naturally, I don't think anyone is thinking about keeping the 9 card row-limit when talking about 2 rows.

The rest you are honestly simply begging the question. "There is not really much point to row identity without 3 rows." We only have 3 rows because it was like this in Witcher 3! If in Witcher 3 were 4 rows, for example, you would now be saying "There is not really much point to row identity without 4 rows"!

Movement synergies require two rows (one to be there and one to move to), not necessarily three. And lacerate, Igni, etc., all can easily be balanced to work on 2 rows. Lacerate could cause 2 damage per unit, and it would almost surely be a fair card. Igni could raise the threshold to something like 30, and it is done as well.

And unfortunately, in a computer game UI is an important factor for the majority of the playerbase. Evidence of that is that this is sole possible reason why HS is so popular.

Edit: Note that I'm not in favor of 2 rows, necessarily. I just haven't heard a single good reason why they shouldn't do it yet.

 

[Ruthless95]

didn't read any of the comments but im sure some one has said ripping a row out is contradictory with bringing gwent "home". 3 rows is one of the main and longest standing pillars of original gwent.

 

[BornBoring]

Note that I'm not in favor of 2 rows, necessarily. I just haven't heard a single good reason why they shouldn't do it yet.

Decreasing complexity, loss of identity and flavour are no good arguments? You are actively denying that three rows compared to two rows add any complexity or depth to the game. So, you'll never hear good reasons to keep three.....


I can say the same: You haven't said I single GOOD reason why 2 rows are better than 3. If it's only about the UI, you can do other things like cutting your opponents hand.
Improving visuals is certainly the correct decision, but you have to do it without hurting the gameplay. Looking at what makes HS successful and just copying it, is the kind of thinking, which made 'homecoming' neccesary in the first place.

 

[grandma_moses13]

I do not like the idea of removing rows ( or adding them, for that matter ) as it would require a complete overhaul of at least three major game mechanics ( weather, movement and row-wide effects like Rot Tosser / Trap come to mind ) as well as completely redesigning more than a few cards.

While that in itself is no argument against any row changes, I personally would prefer to see the time necessary to make those changes be used to create new mechanics and cards rather than overhauling or effectively reinventing robust, working game systems. So, while I do not know which amount of rows would constitute the very best for the game in a vacuum, I know that I do not want to see CDPR use development time to change those systems in any big way as there is a lot of other things that need to be addressed - any 'amount of rows changing' sounds like an unreasonable amount of work for a marginal gain, if any.

So in an ideal world with loads of time, a different amount of rows might be the very best thing that can ever happen to the game. But with the limited amount of time their self-imposed deadline allows them I do not believe that changing any of the fundamentals of the game will leave them with enough time to fulfil the other promises - and that's why I'm against changing rows.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mickoman91]

They shouldn't even consider removing 3rd row.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Decreasing complexity, loss of identity and flavour are no good arguments? You are actively denying that three rows compared to two rows add any complexity or depth to the game. So, you'll never hear good reasons to keep three.....


I can say the same: You haven't said I single GOOD reason why 2 rows are better than 3. If it's only about the UI, you can do other things like cutting your opponents hand.
Improving visuals is certainly the correct decision, but you have to do it without hurting the gameplay. Looking at what makes HS successful and just copying it, is the kind of thinking, which made 'homecoming' neccesary in the first place.

Loss of identity is the only reason for keeping it like now, IMO. "It was like this in Witcher 3, and it should remain like this because it is the same game and I don't want it to change." OK, I grant you that argument.

It decreases complexity only in a mathematical sense, that 3 is more than 2. If it were like that, then why not 4, 5, 6? All other CCGs have one row, and they manage to be complex enough. Most of the current mechanics in the game work just fine with 2 rows, including weather, movement, etc. And flavor it loses none, you can still have melee and ranged (or sieged) and make them flavorful by giving them effects and making units preferential placement.

If you want a non-UI reason for 2 rows, I can actually argue that 3 rows are worse. Ever since they removed row-locked units, three rows are simply too many. Hell, people here say that this "would make Lacerate unbalanced", but the card is already freaking unbalanced! It would potentially make it balanced!

With row-locked units, most players would build decks that work in 1 or 2 rows anyway (to work with commander horn, play around symmetric weather, etc.). Now, any card that works on a row is basically useless, because the opponent needs 4 cards to be forced to line even 2 units in the same row; 7 cards to be forced to line 3 (for a Arachas Venom), and if you want to play Lacerate, they need to play 10 cards that turn (!!) for you to guarantee 12 point value.

You say 2 rows decreases complexity; I think it is the opposite: 3 rows decrease complexity by restricting design-space. Is there any row-based card that is meta? Spores, Lacerate, Awake, Pit Trap, Rotfiend, Trapper, none of these cards are T1 playable (by themselves).

"Oh, but you are losing the skill/strategy of deciding whether to row-stack or spread your units." There is no skill; you just do what is more likely to be worth it, depending on the deck. It is always the same, 90% of the time spreading over 2 rows (and if it is Arena, you can be cute and play on the 1st and 3rd).

 

[Fimbulthrym]

All other CCGs have one row

Thats just wrong. Duel of Might and Magic (canceled) had two rows each and it was great, but has a poor support.

I dont get your point. You have more possibilities to place your card is always more complex than dont have these. You can force your opponent to play in one row only, with weather for example then play lacerate. You dont have to use a row-limited card of his own, you can use synergie to get most out of it. Spies for example are worthless, if they dont use synergy, but they are good cards.

And even if we get row-lock-units back with 3 row and even if someone focus at 2 rows then, it isnt a valid argument against 3 rows. You choose to play only 2 rows, you anybody could fill a niche while playing the 3. row instead and make a counter-deck. Thats just not possible with 2 row (Actually you could go further with your example and have to play only one row, whhile two are possible)

Another point is, you compare Gwent with other TCG. Yes there are many with just one row, but they a one great difference: You have to kill the leader, which you dont have to in Gwent. There arent Lifepoints. A one row system is much more optimised for a Kill-the-Leader Game than Gwent is. Gwent lacks this part of complexity, so you have to get some extra somewhere else.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Thats just wrong. Duel of Might and Magic (canceled) had two rows each and it was great, but has a poor support.

I dont get your point. You have more possibilities to place your card is always more complex than dont have these. You can force your opponent to play in one row only, with weather for example then play lacerate. You dont have to use a row-limited card of his own, you can use synergie to get most out of it. Spies for example are worthless, if they dont use synergy, but they are good cards.

And even if we get row-lock-units back with 3 row and even if someone focus at 2 rows then, it isnt a valid argument against 3 rows. You choose to play only 2 rows, you anybody could fill a niche while playing the 3. row instead and make a counter-deck. Thats just not possible with 2 row (Actually you could go further with your example and have to play only one row, whhile two are possible)

Another point is, you compare Gwent with other TCG. Yes there are many with just one row, but they a one great difference: You have to kill the leader, which you dont have to in Gwent. There arent Lifepoints. A one row system is much more optimised for a Kill-the-Leader Game than Gwent is. Gwent lacks this part of complexity, so you have to get some extra somewhere else.

I never argued for one row, I hope that was clear. Two rows is qualitatively different from one row, because it allows people to play outside of weather, it allows for movement, it allows for row effects vs board effects. Three rows is just quantitatively different from two rows: you potentially get more chances of playing around weather, it allows for more movement (but not in any current design), etc.

Your argument for Lacerate is all well and good, but my claim is empirical: no meta decks run Lacerate (or any row effects really, besides some fringe and particular stuff).

As I said, having more possibilities to do stuff makes the game maybe mathematically more complex (more potential moves), but not necessarily strategically more complex.

Anyway, it is hard to discuss number of rows without knowing what they are doing about the rows. For example, if they are making special effects, it is easy to think of 2 different effects (one gives more power, other protection). What is the third? Can you balance the 3 in a way that everyone won't just use the 2 best effects?

If you are giving some cards preferential row, are there enough of these cards to make it matter for 3 rows? How does this fit with the argument that "removing a row removes the chance of playing around cards", if you are already taking that potentially away with preferred rows? It could also by itself make row-targeted cards better than now, which would undermine my argument.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

If you are giving some cards preferential row

Not some, all. And you still can dodge row effects, just with a malus to all this cards. Or you decide not to do. Its like a chessboard. You dont use ALL rows very often, but you can. I mean you just reduce the possibility by a mathematical number. But it would be a enourmous change for the game and alternate all figures power. Sometimes a mathematical change is just a qualitative change as a quantitativ one.

Sure we dont know what they are in for a 2-row system. But there are even possibilities for 3-row system as i have stated in this thread.

 

[TheIronSultan]

Getting rid of a row seems like it would throw off the dynamic of a lot of cards and deck layouts, so I would say no.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Getting rid of a row seems like it would throw off the dynamic of a lot of cards and deck layouts, so I would say no.

I hear a lot of comments like this, "changing the number of rows would mean changing/balancing too many cards and archetypes", both here and in Reddit.

And I believe that means you didn't understand very well what Homecoming represents. They are adding row effects and row preference; they are changing faction identity; they are fixing the coin-flip. They are basically remaking the game from the ground up. This is Gwent 2. Almost all cards will change and need to be re-balanced, either it be two rows or three.

 

[Guest 4021160]

I hear a lot of comments like this, "changing the number of rows would mean changing/balancing too many cards and archetypes", both here and in Reddit.

And I believe that means you didn't understand very well what Homecoming represents. They are adding row effects and row preference; they are changing faction identity; they are fixing the coin-flip. They are basically remaking the game from the ground up. This is Gwent 2. Almost all cards will change and need to be re-balanced, either it be two rows or three.

Please stop.

 

[pie_ka]

I miss the ‘I don’t know/neutral’ option in your survey I can’t really imagine how Gwent will be after homecoming.

 

[Ic3Purple]

I hear a lot of comments like this, "changing the number of rows would mean changing/balancing too many cards and archetypes", both here and in Reddit.

And I believe that means you didn't understand very well what Homecoming represents. They are adding row effects and row preference; they are changing faction identity; they are fixing the coin-flip. They are basically remaking the game from the ground up. This is Gwent 2. Almost all cards will change and need to be re-balanced, either it be two rows or three.

If that's so, there will need another beta. Long enough to test out all the new stuff, especially fi they are going to remove rows. There gonna be so many cards to rework plus all the new additional stuff. Well, 6 months sounds a bit unrealistic. My bet, they not gonna meet the deadline for the multiplayer for sure.