2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]

+

2 rows instead of 3. Homecoming. [POLL]


  • Total voters
    339
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hate to break it to you but I'm playing since day 1 of CB and I've seen quite a few 1-2 deck dominated meta's. Besides pre-Swap patch, I don't recall any season with 4-5 GM capable decks. I'm talking about different types and different factions.

There is a difference between 1-2 decks being the strongest and 1-2 decks being able to compete at the top. Yes, playing something else is the harder road to travel. Impossible and more difficult are not the same thing.

I'd be careful citing GM as the barometer for "top of the ladder". In most seasons it has not exactly been what could be considered the very top. There the deck pool able to compete was even more expansive. There have not been many instances, if any, where a faction didn't have at least one option to get to GM.

This is a bit off-topic but: Are you aware that top was and is dominated by OP decks? Every damn season. Has nothing to do with the illusory "because they do not fully grasp how to stop, play around or deal with it" notion, which is a complete bs, if I may. OP decks are there for a reason. This comes from someone who usually gets to GM against the grain. Also, look up in the Pro-Ladder, most of the players reached their top MMR with SK already. "Coincidentally" SK is dominating regular Ladder as well. Why is that?

Here, we're on the same page. The top is often dominated by decks able to do overpowered stuff. This is why they're on top :). However, in many of these cases you could conceivably run a build to counter the overpowered mechanics those decks were exploiting. The problem was it was either extremely difficult to do so effectively, doing so compromised your deck against other popular builds or some combination of both.

The inability to stop, play around or deal with it statement hinted at how the meta changes as rank changes. For most seasons there have been ranges where certain decks see more play than others. As you go up, the game play changes. Many players running to complain about a mechanic are going out, netdecking a popular deck, reading a 2-3 page guide and expecting success. They're not considering what they can change to counter the decks they're seeing. Incidentally, this is why the entire ladder gets swamped with OP builds after those top decks get... publicized.

P.S. At this moment, Gwent is a failure in my eyes. No uniqueness of factions, everything is pretty binary, apart from very few exceptions. Keeping it as it is, I'm talking about the current design, is probably a bad idea. It has to change and the changes need to be drastic. If Homecoming fails, I'd be bummed but at least CDPR tried. But this...

Again, right there with you. My personal issue with 3 rows is less about 3 rows itself. It's simply my opinion most of the times they have made a radical change the game has ended up worse off. Given this opinion, the number of times we have had huge, sweeping changes and the scope of the changes going into Homecoming I can't help but think it's happening again.
 
I wouldn't give a damn if there were only one row but the game is good and skill-based.
But this is where you're mistaken. Card placement, movement and board space is what adds (and would add a lot more if implemented better than currently) to strategy and tactics of gameplay. When you have a game with already pretty fundamentally basic rules and win conditions, having a 3-3 section system, among other mechanics that inject more depth into the game (3 copies of bronzes, CA spies, etc), is what adds variety, fun and skill to the game.
And I don't for a second believe that the reason for removing 2 rows is that it was impossible to make it work with 3-3, or that it works better with 2-2. The same goes for spies, bronzes and coin flip. I believe the reason is that it's a very convenient shortcut that solves many problems at once. (You can make an argument that "better" is subjective. But I believe there are "inferior betters" and "superior betters", even if we continue to indulge in this precarious (unreliable) subjectivity. Because even different subjectivities/preferences are not by their existence excluded from any scrutiny.)
But they are not problems that kept Gwent from becoming more fun and skill-based. They are "problems" with I) aesthetics, II) need to appeal to a broader audience because of the announcement of Artifact that would for sure cut into the same player group a more advanced Gwent would rely on to be more financially successful, III) the time constrain CDPR are under now, and IV) just easier balancing and less resources needed to spend on future development of the game.
 
Last edited:
You usually have almost a viable deck per faction.
And here lies the problem, imo. In "usually" and, most of all, "almost".
Prior Swap there were "certain" GM viable decks. And that is my point.
Theres almost always a bad faction that got nerfed hard. Every patch. Now it seems to be NR.
And always one faction that finds its way to the top. We all know what faction I'm talking about. The most problematic one...
Its hard to have multiple decks that are GM ready with such a limited card pool.
We need more cards per faction for that to happen.
But we did. The only thing that killed it was constant whining about completely overrated Brouver into Barclay combo. And this is another proof of mob mentality and that "community" doesn't know better.
If we could mix factions you probably would see more.
We already have Arena :p
There is a difference between 1-2 decks being the strongest and 1-2 decks being able to compete at the top. Yes, playing something else is the harder road to travel. Impossible and more difficult are not the same thing.
Yes... And where did I state otherwise? I mean good players will always end on top. But the point of having many viable decks is that an average player feels better about himself/herself as well. And that's a really good thing for the game.
I'd be careful citing GM as the barometer for "top of the ladder". In most seasons it has not exactly been what could be considered the very top. There the deck pool able to compete was even more expansive. There have not been many instances, if any, where a faction didn't have at least one option to get to GM.
I can tell you from my own experience over several seasons - top is always full with top decks and a few of those who go against the grain. The more top decks you have, the more variations of those you see at the top and consequently more counter decks. With 1 or 2 top decks, the counters are just rolling. because they do not need to take other decks into account. Just like I didn't with Axemen one season.
Overall, I think we're saying the same thing using different words or so it seems...:)

But this is where you're mistaken.
Almost stopped reading here... because you can't back it up with any evidence. One can't be right about something that doesn't even exist.
I, on the other hand, can back up my point with current state of Gwent which is untenable in the long run.
Card placement, movement and board space is what adds (and would add a lot more if implemented better than currently) to strategy and tactics of gameplay. When you have a game with already pretty fundamentally basic rules and win conditions, having a 3-3 section system, among other mechanics that inject more depth into the game (3 copies of bronzes, CA spies, etc), is what adds variety, fun and skill to the game.
Oh, dear. Don't take my "1 row" too seriously. That was an hyperbole to make a point.
And I don't for a second believe that the reason for removing 2 rows is that it was impossible to make it work with 3-3, or that it works better with 2-2. The same goes for spies, bronzes and coin flip. I believe the reason is that it's a very convenient shortcut that solves many problems at once. (You can make an argument that "better" is subjective. But I believe there are "inferior betters" and "superior betters", even if we continue to indulge in this precarious (unreliable) subjectivity. Because even different subjectivities/preferences are not by their existence excluded from any scrutiny.)
But they are not problems that kept Gwent from becoming more fun and skill-based. They are "problems" with I) aesthetics, II) need to appeal to a broader audience because of the announcement of Artifact that would for sure cut into the same player group a more advanced Gwent would rely on to be more financially successful, III) the time constrain CDPR are under now, and IV) just easier balancing and less resources needed to spend on future development of the game.
That is just your speculation. And I can't comment on it, nor do I want to, because anything I say would be speculation as well.
When is CDPR's E3? Can't wait to see Cyberpunk in action.
Already happened. Here's the new trailer:

P.S. What's with autocorrect? Works at random and randomly changes words.. Only here.
 
Last edited:
P.S. I believe the only thing the community wants to hear at this point is that CDPR is keeping 3 rows after all.

I'd rather have 2 rows that have meaning than 3 rows that don't as it is now. I'm actually looking forward to two rows, larger card art again and reason to actually place melee units in the melee row, ranged units in the ranged row. Not all factions have many cards that fit the siege description so I think that combining the ranged rows makes perfect sense. This combined with the 10 card hand limit should work fine in every respect.
 
300 answers out of 400k gwent players is totally rapresentative of gwent's players opinion.
And so what? You are 1 out of these 400k so even less. I just llinked it, because i dont whant a second thread with discussion and the same "But i Like/I hate it"-arguments again. You can check these there.
think this is a reasonable point, from a tactical perspective. Technically, Northern Realms and Nilfgaard are the only factions who use proper siege engines
See siege as support and you will find some units which will fit there by lore. Every mage for example; wild hand navigators, crones, endriaga for monster; ships, healers and smiths for skellige; healers, officers and trappers for scoi'tel
 
300 answers out of 400k gwent players is totally rapresentative of gwent's players opinion.

How do you know there are 400k players?

Anyway, even if there were 10 million, 200 people in a poll would be enough to be 99% confident with 9% margin of error (google "sample size calculator" if you want to check it).

For the poll above this means that we are 99% sure that 0-16.1% are fine with 2 rows, and 81.9-100% would prefer 3 rows.
This means the majority is against 2 rows.

You can argue that there are more hardcore people on the forums, and more casual players won't care about 2 or 3 rows. While this might be true, the poll clearly shows that of people who care the majority is against 2 rows.
 
And so what? You are 1 out of these 400k so even less. I just llinked it, because i dont whant a second thread with discussion and the same "But i Like/I hate it"-arguments again. You can check these there.
Count me in as well. I don't get the fascination with 3 rows that have no meaning, as they are now. So, it's 4 people vs you alone here. See, how misconstrued cn it be. Linking random thread and citing it as an overwhelming opinion of a player base is not going to cut it, I'm afraid.
People who are clinging to "3 rows or riot " attitude have to provide something to support their push. And when I say "something" I don't mean "any random reason".
 
I don't get the fascination with 3 rows that have no meaning, as they are now
NOBODY said that. All who want to stay with 3 rows, me included, want 3 rows with meaning. We are all agree, that the current situatrion is bad.
Linking random thread
I dont cite random, it was a thread excactly about the subject.
citing it as an overwhelming opinion of a player base is not going to cut it, I'm afraid.
I dont get you point. We had the discussion and a Poll, the majority there wanted to stay with 3 rows (however they looked) where is your majority you expect to have? The 3-row faction has abase for her majority, you not.
So, it's 4 people vs you alone here
I just dont want to repeat the discussion in every thread you mention how good 2 rows are. SHould we make a poll in every thread, how many people a pro/contra the same thing?
People who are clinging to "3 rows or riot " attitude have to provide something to support their push
We already have, but you just dont get the point i assume.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think 3 rows with meaning are better than 2 rows with meaning... ;)
(I know: for the devs is it more complicated)
 
NOBODY said that. All who want to stay with 3 rows, me included, want 3 rows with meaning. We are all agree, that the current situatrion is bad.
A little later on this...
I dont cite random, it was a thread excactly about the subject.
A random thread about 3 vs 2 rows. It is what it is.
I dont get you point. We had the discussion and a Poll, the majority there wanted to stay with 3 rows (however they looked) where is your majority you expect to have? The 3-row faction has abase for her majority, you not.
Who are "we"? A few players who frequent these forums. Well, that's it CDPR... don't you dare!
I just dont want to repeat the discussion in every thread you mention how good 2 rows are. SHould we make a poll in every thread, how many people a pro/contra the same thing?
No, that would've been even less productive. I do however wish that a few would not speak for majority. Especially when those few don't have the slightest idea what Gwent are we getting with Homecoming.
We already have, but you just dont get the point i assume.
If you want to quote me, please don't do it partially to fit the narrative. As I wrote, not "any random reason" but a "reasonable" reason. So far, haven't read any. And again, do you have any idea what this game is going to look like to make assumptions about its new design?
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think 3 rows with meaning are better than 2 rows with meaning... ;)
(I know: for the devs is it more complicated)
If 3 rows with meaning are much harder to balance and mange than 2, then it's not better. Wouldn't you agree?

Again, we're just speculating and I'm playing devil's advocate. But I do hate mob mentality.
 
You can argue that there are more hardcore people on the forums, and more casual players won't care about 2 or 3 rows. While this might be true, the poll clearly shows that of people who care the majority is against 2 rows.
You just stated why that poll isn't meaningful, thanks for avoiding me the hassle.

To be fair, the "hardcore people" complained about basically every single major change in this game (faction passives, weather change, gold immunity, etc...). While sometimes it was the correct call (create) it's not really meaningful especially since we have to see a single screenshot of what it will looks like.
 
If 3 rows with meaning are much harder to balance and mange than 2, then it's not better. Wouldn't you agree?

I think, there are many talented devs at CDPR...so if they manage to balance a 2-row Gwent, they can also balance a 3-row Gwent. And I speak always about an ideal situation...but you're right: we have no idea, what HC will look like.
 
If 3 rows with meaning are much harder to balance and mange than 2, then it's not better. Wouldn't you agree?
One question: Why i may not be negativ for 3 rows because i dont know anything yet, but you can be negativ about "balancingproblems" you dont even know yet, too? And i am not a dev, i dont care how difficult it may be. If balanced correct, 3 rows are better, because the possebilities for the game are much higher than with two rows, in any case.

But i see you dont want to discuss this matter, because you keep ignoring all points by just random accusate anybody.
@any Mod, can you put this in the thread for this topic?
 
@DMaster2

So, a topic where 200 people are saying that they don't like something and there is two guys that are saying that it's fine, the minority is in their right, cause there are 400 000 more players that never showed to voice their opinion... you know how polls are working in general, right?

And @Archpriest : "I do however wish that a few would not speak for majority. Especially when those few don't have the slightest idea what Gwent are we getting with Homecoming"...

There is a majority that voted (and it is an overwhelming majority) in one direction - some of those people even care enough to write something. A lot of those people stopped writing or playing the game at all, cause of polls like this one, where the fanbase actually CLEARLY shows disagreement with the direction the game is going, but it is going in the other nevertheless.

And after 2 years we are stuck with a "Homecoming", cause the game was dug in a hole.

A "Homecoming", where we'll stuck with 2 rows, cause that was the origin home of Gwent. So we need to get there again.

I thought preferred rows where way more closer to Gwent's Home than a 2 row system, but I can only guess it's only me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom