2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]

[time_drainer]

Believe me, weather decks were far from weak on CB

I didn't say weak, I said binary. But to hear people talk about it, it may have been just OP regardless of the opponent's deck.

You were forced to actually use your brain and pick non-random filler units which had synergy within your deck AND didnt row stack instead of just picking the same 15 "best bronze cards" and stick it up on pretty much every deck you build no matter what.
Speaking of which, row placement was a hell of a good balance tool that they removed from the game. One row could be the difference between an OP card and a balanced one.

Okay, thanks, I get the idea now. If there were actually working alternatives, and the rows were actually balanced, then it may have been actually a good thing for the game.
Of course I can't pass any judgement on that since I didn't see it in action. Pretty much the same as with the 2 rows idea.

 

[partci]

...The row limitation, the manifesto that says that rows will matter, and a removal of one row, for me it doesnt add up...

Well, nice to see I'm not alone. Still I hope that "the rows" they remove will be your hand and Oppo's hand turned into a falling menu of sorts (like the auto-hide Windows taskbar).

 

[Mancoon1980]

Well, nice to see I'm not alone. Still I hope that "the rows" they remove will be your hand and Oppo's hand turned into a falling menu of sorts (like the auto-hide Windows taskbar).

I'd like to clarify as well that I'm fine with opponents hands being removed. However don't remove the rows we play on. I dont get that either, big letter speaking about making rows matter again, going back to our roots and oh yeah we may remove a row? Wtf. And then to actually decide that's the best choice after overwhelming backlash to that idea is mind boggling. Don't be like star wars, you have to have fan service and not a bind vision without thinking about the core players or the fan's will leave, just like last jedi, even the hardcore ones like here in the forumns daily will eventually be gone... I don't see how you can rework every card now and make a new game in 6 months. All we wanted was dark tone, preferred rows, roned down rng, and better balancing..

 

[time_drainer]

Since we all now speculating on the 2-rows rework, here is my understanding, guesses and ideas.

The HC announcement said: "we would like to introduce a preferred row for some cards that would grant them additional benefits when put on that row. Also, rows in the front and back would always grant a different buff when a unit is placed there."

So no row-locking, only preferred row and only for some units. It's still the same direction only to a limited extent. I figure being forced to play the units to the "wrong" row would still be shooting yourself in the leg, just like playing a bricked card. Based on the discussion above I'm now undecided about this row preference mechanic, and whether it's a good thing. Also it may not work well as balancing mentioned above if the majority of cards would remain row indifferent. But we'll need to see it.

I figure the general benefits of rows would be something simple like +1 power in the front, +2 armor in the back. So engines to the back, regular units to the front. Although if this exact guess would be correct, it would also be pretty much a no-brainer where to place units, except when playing around opponent's cards.

What I would very much like to see is having units that get different but well-balanced effects when played to different rows (e.g. simplistic, stupid example: on front deal 3 damage, on back boost by 3). That case it would actually be a choice regardless of expecting row-hate cards from the opponent. Also messing with the opponents row placement by threatening a certain row would now be messing with his strategy, not an outright counter (which again can be very binary).
This would actually be a right fit for 2-row system, as having 3 different effects for each of the 3 rows would be just too much.

 

[ZenaRose]

Yea cut a row is probably a nice idea. Also probably worth adding a faces to leaders with 30 hp.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Thanks for the explanation about row-locked units. I still have my concerns though.


Okay, I get that and I admit it requires skill. But doesn't it make the game very binary?
Like Frost (if I get it right weathers were also row-locked like in W3 Gwent) may be a dead card against a deck that runs no or hardly any melee units, but if your opponent relies primarily on them you hit jackpot. Sure they can try to play around it to some extent, but when you face choices like you described too often, you just know that you're in a bad matchup. It's like playing a deck of high units against Scorch-mania: it takes serious thinking when and how to play your units to minimize your losses, but in the end you just know that you're screwed.

Not really. The biggest difference with row locked cards was the game had more structure. Chess has structure. RL card games have structure. Games need structure. When you make everything agile, remove gold immunity, blur the lines between card tier value, reduce faction identity, etc, you might gain more freedom or make design less burdensome but you remove structure as well. Structure is what lets proficient players rely on experience and forward thinking to outplay the opponent. Structure can and often does add to the skill gap.

Take away too much structure and it turns into what often happens in current iteration gwent, where you need card A or B at a specific time to counter card X or Y in many situations. Or, you really need certain cards in your deck to handle a certain match up. Or... you just get trucked by certain match ups. It becomes far less about outmaneuvering or outplaying the opponent and more about drawing the right cards, the match up, "creating" the right card or, well, things completely unrelated to what would be considered player skill.

In terms of weather.... Frost may have been less valuable against certain matchups but it was hardly ever completely useless because decks were forced to balance rows to some degree. Weather decks couldn't just mindlessly slap one type of weather in, design their deck with one type of card to reliably pull it, or things of that nature either. Not only this but weather immunity was a thing and, as you stated, the mechanics of it were like W3 Gwent.

It's also important to note some cards were agile. Agile was a unique benefit to certain cards (if memory serves it was a big part of ST, which is why ST initially got screwed when everything went agile). Some of them may have had slightly less power compared to alternatives but still saw play because the utility of agile wasn't something to overlook. This isn't the only example of this either.

By "best" cards I guess you mean cards with the best synergy to your deck. So instead of choosing cards that actually fit to your archetype, you were forced to pick some random fillers I guess? That doesn't really seem very appealing to me. Teching some cards in and out of your deck based on their effect for the meta is fine in my books, but having to consider some ancillary trait just feels weird. As you said yourself it limits deck design and not in a good way in my opinion. Not sure if I get what you mean by providing structure as counter-argument.
As for weak cards, I'm pretty sure there were also cards back then that weren't worth playing. Balancing is a constant process and unfortunately with each rule set or other meta change there are some cards rendered useless and left behind indefinitely.

Also a very important question: were they able to balance this row-locking aspect? So letting players build decks with some exposure to weather but not too much. Cause it seems like a nightmare to do it right, especially if you want cards that fit into more than one deck. I mean you can try to balance the row-locking of units for one type of deck and declare a card Melee, but the same unit may find place in another deck, which would rather require it to be Ranged. Were there actually attempts to to get this balance aspect right, or was it like "she has sword, so she's Melee", leading implicitly to binary matchups and some archetypes (or even worse: unique deck designs) being crippled by row-locking alone?

To sum it up I much prefer this weather-like decks where you actually can "make your own luck" with cards like Drowners, than relying on your opponent's deck too much.

When I said bad cards I mean the cards that don't see play. In pretty much every iteration of gwent throughout OB certain cards have been declared "bad" because it was impossible for them to be competitive compared to alternatives. Interestingly, it hasn't been the same cards for every patch version of OB gwent. It says a thing or two about the balancing of the game when the most hated faction, under-performing cards, over-performing cards, etc, ends up being a game of round robin. Either cards are being over-nerfed, over-buffed, both or updates are less about balancing and more about changing the scenery.

The post by Laveley sums it up pretty well too (not sure why I always seem to agree with him/her ).

 

[Thunderscape]

Not really. The biggest difference with row locked cards was the game had more structure. Chess has structure. RL card games have structure. Games need structure. When you make everything agile, remove gold immunity, blur the lines between card tier value, reduce faction identity, etc, you might gain more freedom or make design less burdensome but you remove structure as well. Structure is what lets proficient players rely on experience and forward thinking to outplay the opponent. Structure can and often does add to the skill gap.

Perfectly explained.
Agree.

 

[time_drainer]

Take away too much structure and it turns into what often happens in current iteration gwent, where you need card A or B at a specific time to counter card X or Y in many situations. Or, you really need certain cards in your deck to handle a certain match up. Or... you just get trucked by certain match ups. It becomes far less about outmaneuvering or outplaying the opponent and more about drawing the right cards, the match up, "creating" the right card or, well, things completely unrelated to what would be considered player skill.

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you're trying to say with your examples and effects of taking away structure. Like Gold immunity, and Gold cards being way more powerful than Silvers and Bronzes seems to me exactly like a game of chance you're trying to avoid of who happens to draw more of his/her Gold cards.
But I guess I should just give up trying to understand how the game was back then without being there myself.

When I said bad cards I mean the cards that don't see play. In pretty much every iteration of gwent throughout OB certain cards have been declared "bad" because it was impossible for them to be competitive compared to alternatives. Interestingly, it hasn't been the same cards for every patch version of OB gwent. It says a thing or two about the balancing of the game when the most hated faction, under-performing cards, over-performing cards, etc, ends up being a game of round robin. Either cards are being over-nerfed, over-buffed, both or updates are less about balancing and more about changing the scenery.

It seems like normal balancing process to me. When trying to create balance sometimes you don't do enough or overdo. It takes several iterations, and also when you change things new problems and imbalances arise you weren't even aware of before, because the former bigger problems have hidden it. Like nobody played Brouver spy-abuse before February path, because Dwarfs deck was even more OP.
That said as I've already stated I've only been around since shortly before Midwinter patch, so I'm in no way an authority on how good of a job they did with balancing.

The only patch I can give opinion is the february patch which addressed some core issues, and balance improved somewhat, so in the end I count it as an improvement. The changes were blunt though (power changes instead of card reworks), left some problems - already visible back then - untouched and yeah some cards got nerfed useless. This latter problem is way less serious though as some people complain about. Like Dwarfs that some people say got "nerfed to death" still have an impressive win rate only they are not that OP anymore and tiny bit inferior to Brouver spy-abuse decks so they see way less play.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you're trying to say with your examples and effects of taking away structure. Like Gold immunity, and Gold cards being way more powerful than Silvers and Bronzes seems to me exactly like a game of chance you're trying to avoid of who happens to draw more of his/her Gold cards.
But I guess I should just give up trying to understand how the game was back then without being there myself.

By structure I mean clearly defined rules for specific aspects of the game. I'm sure everyone would agree chess is a complicated game. Each piece still follows somewhat limited rules. The rules are relatively simple if you think about it. The complexity comes from the number of different pieces and situations involving them that can come up at any given time/board state. Better chess players are better because they have a stronger handle on these rules for any given time/board state. They can pick the best moves for any given time, or they have a stronger ability to make a move designed to lure an opponent into a mistake, etc.

Card tiers are a decent example to illustrate my point. It used to be setup where bronze/silver/gold cards had a relatively consistent value range. Obviously, there were exceptions where certain cards could exceed these values or do very poorly depending on the situation (think Lacerate, big removals like Scorch, etc.). The point still stands. Bronzes/silvers/golds had relatively consistent value for every card within the card tier. This meant these card tiers had meaning. Over time the game seemed to shift away from this. Some golds generate ridiculous value while others do not. Some bronzes consistently outperform silvers. Some cards generate limited value in every conceivable situation and end up thrust into "bad card" status.

It's not a big mystery why it becomes difficult to make correct balancing choices when bronze card A consistently yields 10 points while bronze card B gives 15. Meanwhile, a silver card reliably gives 13. It gets even worse when certain leaders can give 40 in the right situation, others give you a free spy pull on a whim (interesting they changed it back to have this ability given much of the coin flip problem comes into play when you lose flip and can't find your spy but the opponent can), and the only consistent difference between a bronze, silver or gold is the color of the border. The "rules" and "structure" applicable to this facet of the game went poof (they're not completely gone but the consistency hasn't been there for some time).

Yes, I can understand some of the reasoning behind such a change. What happens if player A draws four golds over the course of a game and player B gets rng slapped in the face and draws zero? The thing is, this still happens in a number of ways. Don't high roll the right card in situation A and you're screwed. Don't "create" the right option in a situation and GG, do not pass go and collect 200 dollars. Don't pull that perfect counter to an opponent setup and game over. Even disparities in who drew the most golds still happens.

This problem could have been corrected in other ways anyway. To toss out one example, designing your deck such that you could reliably pull most or all of it over the course of three rounds. Give each faction a healthy supply of cards they can fit into multiple archetypes for this purpose and problem solved. Or, baiting an opponent into burning some of his golds in a round to tip the scales when you intend on dropping out of that round anyway. In any case, bad card draw RNG hasn't magically disappeared.

It seems like normal balancing process to me. When trying to create balance sometimes you don't do enough or overdo. It takes several iterations, and also when you change things new problems and imbalances arise you weren't even aware of before, because the former bigger problems have hidden it. Like nobody played Brouver spy-abuse before February path, because Dwarfs deck was even more OP.
That said as I've already stated I've only been around since shortly before Midwinter patch, so I'm in no way an authority on how good of a job they did with balancing.

The only patch I can give opinion is the february patch which addressed some core issues, and balance improved somewhat, so in the end I count it as an improvement. The changes were blunt though (power changes instead of card reworks), left some problems - already visible back then - untouched and yeah some cards got nerfed useless. This latter problem is way less serious though as some people complain about. Like Dwarfs that some people say got "nerfed to death" still have an impressive win rate only they are not that OP anymore and tiny bit inferior to Brouver spy-abuse decks so they see way less play.

I agree completely. Here is the problem. It's presumably very difficult to get anywhere close to right when a ton of new cards hit the books every patch. Likewise, it has to be unimaginably difficult to get it right when you make major changes and let them sit for 6+ months. What ends up happening, and what has happened, is broken mechanic/concept/card interaction/card A B and C rise to the top shortly after a patch hits, dominate and don't get corrected for an extended period of time. Put differently, when a new "meta" hits people take time to figure things out, they get figured out and the tier 1 decks make an appearance. Everyone copies those tier 1 decks, or uses some iteration of them, and game play becomes stale because it's the same four decks every single game for 4-5 months.

I'll just say it like this.... Removing a row isn't a magical solution to the problems with Gwent. If anything it's a move in the wrong direction. It reeks of further simplification, which is the direction it's been continuously headed in for a while. Removing a row isn't returning the game to it's roots. It's pushing it closer to the edge of the cliff.

 

[Pruny]

Yeah this game require weekly small balance hotfixes to make more arhetypes viable.

 

[time_drainer]

Skipping over the chess part I don't think that compares very well.

Card tiers are a decent example to illustrate my point. It used to be setup where bronze/silver/gold cards had a relatively consistent value range. Obviously, there were exceptions where certain cards could exceed these values or do very poorly depending on the situation (think Lacerate, big removals like Scorch, etc.). The point still stands. Bronzes/silvers/golds had relatively consistent value for every card within the card tier. This meant these card tiers had meaning. Over time the game seemed to shift away from this. Some golds generate ridiculous value while others do not. Some bronzes consistently outperform silvers. Some cards generate limited value in every conceivable situation and end up thrust into "bad card" status...

While I think this kind of an exaggeration, I agree that cards in each tier should provide about the same value. But I much rather see that as a problem with balance than structure. Yes, there are cards out there that too consistently give you value over their tier, and others that perform below. Still other than these outliers Golds > Silvers > Bronzes holds true in general. The problem is that of course everybody plays the ones that are OP, that's why it's so prevalent.

On the other hand I think situational cards (cards generating above or below their "default" tier value based on situation) are okay, especially if both you and opponent have influence on the situation. Cases where lower tier cards outperforming higher tier cards can and should happen, otherwise it's just who draws better tier cards. That's why I think that card tier values should be hold close to each other, e.g. if bronzes generally give 10-15 points, Silvers giving 13-18 sounds about right to me. Problem comes when it's too easy to outperform higher tier cards. Also where the card lands on the range should come from how good you played it, and not better cards vs worse cards in the same tier.

Also when I talk about value I don't necessarily mean direct point value (while my example considered only that for the sake of simplicity) . I'm completely fine with bronzes outperforming even Golds on direct point value when it's their purpose. E.g. Dol Blathanna Sentries almost always outperform Isengrim:Outlaw in direct point value. Still latter card provides more value indirectly during the game as it keeps deck going and provides access to key cards, while former is just a finisher with insane amount of setup requirement. Now that is an extreme example, but it illustrates that it's not that easy to compare two cards based true value.
But sure I also agree that there are some obviously problematic cards in this regard.

Yes, I can understand some of the reasoning behind such a change. What happens if player A draws four golds over the course of a game and player B gets rng slapped in the face and draws zero? The thing is, this still happens in a number of ways. Don't high roll the right card in situation A and you're screwed. Don't "create" the right option in a situation and GG, do not pass go and collect 200 dollars. Don't pull that perfect counter to an opponent setup and game over. Even disparities in who drew the most golds still happens.

This problem could have been corrected in other ways anyway. To toss out one example, designing your deck such that you could reliably pull most or all of it over the course of three rounds. Give each faction a healthy supply of cards they can fit into multiple archetypes for this purpose and problem solved. Or, baiting an opponent into burning some of his golds in a round to tip the scales when you intend on dropping out of that round anyway. In any case, bad card draw RNG hasn't magically disappeared.

Your first suggestion has been discussed a couple times, and it's countered with the argument (which I also support), that it would just remove all variance from the gameplay, so matches would be decided before even started. Not fun. Baiting out Golds or other important cards is possible even in current play, but has its limits.
But I also don't want to completely eliminate card drawing randomness. Even in my "ideal world" drawing more Golds would give advantage, in extreme cases can even decide the match. But generally I want to be able to overcome the card draw disadvantage, so setting card tier values too far apart is not beneficial in my opinion.

I agree completely. Here is the problem. It's presumably very difficult to get anywhere close to right when a ton of new cards hit the books every patch. Likewise, it has to be unimaginably difficult to get it right when you make major changes and let them sit for 6+ months. What ends up happening, and what has happened, is broken mechanic/concept/card interaction/card A B and C rise to the top shortly after a patch hits, dominate and don't get corrected for an extended period of time. Put differently, when a new "meta" hits people take time to figure things out, they get figured out and the tier 1 decks make an appearance. Everyone copies those tier 1 decks, or uses some iteration of them, and game play becomes stale because it's the same four decks every single game for 4-5 months.

Yes, I agree on that, but I also accept the reasons of why CDPR want to take their time with this rework, and why they don't want to spend significant effort on balancing current game when it will be changed anyway. But I also hope after they have launched Homecoming, they will start and keep releasing balance patches every 1-2 months for at least half year (possibly longer), otherwise there's no hope for balance.

I'll just say it like this.... Removing a row isn't a magical solution to the problems with Gwent. If anything it's a move in the wrong direction. It reeks of further simplification, which is the direction it's been continuously headed in for a while. Removing a row isn't returning the game to it's roots. It's pushing it closer to the edge of the cliff.

I think nobody really expects it to solve any current problem with the game, but it enables new opportunities like mobile app or better art (which we may or may not think are necessary).
Also while I can't evaluate closed beta state of rows, but in current game I don't consider 3 rows essential (while I would also prefer to keep them).

 

[xferus]

Yeah, it seems they're incapable of making this game any better, despite of loads of clear feedback in the past. Anyway, this "Homecoming" is some BS name - maybe they should call it "Hearthstoning" instead. Two rows and a face, eh? "And boy, were we naive" Yeah, you're still naive, if you think this is going to work. Say goodbye to Gwent. RIP.

 

[Noekk]

You'll be able to test the changes and we'll be updating you on what we're working on and what changes we're planning to introduce

Any chance console players will get a chance to test these changes too?

 

[Stormkahn]

I am telling you CDPR, this will be the worst change you have ever made to the game, it's making me, a veteran, who is playing Gwent for a year and also loved Gwent in W3 from being completely excited for Homecoming to thinking I ll probably quit when it hits. DON'T REMOVE A ROW FROM GWENT, it is part of its identity.

 

[H0m3wr3ck3r]

CDPR: "What we didn’t realize back then was that we also started slowly drifting away from our original vision for standalone GWENT. While fighting with the everyday reality of regular updates and content drops, we lost sight of what was unique and fun about the game. And you played a big role in making us realize that. Thank you for your sincere feedback!"

Community Vote: 94% of players don't want rows removed.

CDPR: We don't care what you think..

I don't know why they can't just release a stand alone version for mobiles and stop wrecking the current version, are people seriously going to be playing competitively on their mobile phone?

Have it linked with your PC/Console account somehow if it's that essential, but don't destroy the fabric of the game..

I just want a good game to play on my PC, i personally am not interested in playing any mobile phone games.... especially a mobile phone game on my PC, just stupidity...

 

[partci]

... I don't know why they can't just release a stand alone version for mobiles and stop wrecking the current version, are people seriously going to be playing competitively on their mobile phone?...

This! It boggles my mind. I don't think Gwent is mobile friendly - it is just too complex of a game and needs tons of reading, even when you know what each card does. The entire mobile thing is a trap and it's shown with the place where Gwent is right now.

We don't need mobile - we never did - all we needed was a good Gwent game.

 

[Laveley]

This! It boggles my mind. I don't think Gwent is mobile friendly - it is just too complex of a game and needs tons of reading, even when you know what each card does. The entire mobile thing is a trap and it's shown with the place where Gwent is right now.

Exactly, i already said this on other threads, the whole ideal of gwent on mobile is just plain awkward.

Mobile public is casual public. You can play hearthstone casually, on the bus on your way back home from work, without thinking too much, just dropping units "by the numbers" of mana and still win game.

Gwent is not like that. You need to think, you need to ponder, you need to know what your opponent is playing. If you missplay, the game frequently punishes you hard. Even now, the game as shallow as it is, its not casual friendly. If you play sloppy, you will loose, again, and again and again. And even so casuals dont matter losing too much, nobody wants to loose all the time.

if they want a mobile game, they could just launch a "gwent mobile" version of the game that is simplified (use 2 rows if you want to), but has nothing to do with the "original gwent", i already gave this idea once or twice before.

 

[GenLiu]

I join the majority saying that reducing to 2 rows would be a bad thing.
Rows are one of the assets that make Gwent so unique and reducing them to 2 would be stripping the game from one of its biggest strength.

In fact, not only I think they should keep all three rows but I also believe that they need to develop this aspect of the game. Because as long as I was agree with making every units agile (that was a great idea imo) it would also be great to give some units extra value when they're played on a specific row (I hate the idea of forcing the player to play on a specific row but giving him/her arguments to put his/her unit on a specific row is a necessity imo).

CDPR has to be careful not to lose what make their game unique. I don't think anyone around here want to see this game becoming "another random CCG".

 

[BornBoring]

Faction passives? Gold Immunity? Changes to weather? All IMHO were good calls.

Generally it's ok to remove something if you just can't find a way to balance it. So I agree that it was the right to call to remove faction passives (and I also said that the first time I've heard about it). But this strategy is like CDPR's goto move since the start of open beta. Although the majority of players seem to think removing gold immunty was the correct decision I disagree with that. Instead of removing it completely, CDPR should have tweaked it a bit by adding a few more cards, which can interact with golds. People were concerned that nearly all golds, which will be played regulary are cards with deploy effects and they were totally right. It's one of the reasons, why I think the game is just not entertaining right now (my more detailed opinion about gold immunity: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...-6-months-without-gold-immunity-my-conclusion).
Changing the weather mechanic was necessary, but I think the result is rather mediocre. I think two-sided weather and weather immunity added a lot of flavour to game and also made weather more interesting. Currently it's just pretty boring, because of the reasons I mentioned and because there is lack of interesting cards, which synergize with weather (no, tutoring cards is no real synergy).

 

[lakired]

Simply removing a row is only going to limit strategic potential. However, there are ways it can be done that could potentially mitigate this. Two suggestions I've seen and will echo here are 1) five rows, with the melee row being shared, and 2) four rows split down the center with the introduction of 'flanks', essentially adding two additional "rows."

Both I think could actually IMPROVE upon the current six row model, while slimming the board down.