And GWENT is uninstalled... sadly

[4RM3D]

In an ideal situation (which budget, personnel, and vision are all aligned) I think Gwent should be the base of a 3-way service in one platform

In an ideal situation and if the vision was indeed aligned, there wouldn't be a need to suggest different versions of Gwent to begin with. Even with the budget, this suggestion would split the development and the community. Furthermore, it still wouldn't solve the inherent problems with the Witcher Gwent, which made CDPR choose to go into a different direction in the first place. Gwent was never meant to be a CCG and that's still noticeable with some of the design decisions.

 

[apu11]

In an ideal situation and if the vision was indeed aligned, there wouldn't be a need to suggest different versions of Gwent to begin with. Even with the budget, this suggestion would split the development and the community. Furthermore, it still wouldn't solve the inherent problems with the Witcher Gwent, which made CDPR choose to go into a different direction in the first place. Gwent was never meant to be a CCG and that's still noticeable with some of the design decisions.

True.
Still, its a dream. Also, I don't see it as a division of the same game (although it is), but I see it more like what most sports video games do: providing different game modes. Most sports game put all their effort on the PvP online experience which is the most profitable and popular, however, they still provide different game modes on the same platform for players that are not interested in the ranked mode. Most always have the fun arcade mode that bends the rules of the main game & are simpler and they provide the single-player experience with a narrative element. To me, that is what I would prefer, where Beta is just an arcade mode that provides a simpler game. It maybe doesn't have all the incentives, but it will still be available for fun.

 

[Shabman]

In an ideal situation and if the vision was indeed aligned, there wouldn't be a need to suggest different versions of Gwent to begin with. Even with the budget, this suggestion would split the development and the community. Furthermore, it still wouldn't solve the inherent problems with the Witcher Gwent, which made CDPR choose to go into a different direction in the first place. Gwent was never meant to be a CCG and that's still noticeable with some of the design decisions.

You know very well that the community is already split since the end of Beta Gwent.

I, for one, literally do not play this game. I gave it a shot and absolutely hated it, so I stopped playing and ended up uninstalling it.

If tomorrow CDPR says, "hey! we're bringing back Beta Gwent as a game mode or whatever, who wants to play", I swear on what I hold most holy that I will install it and spend money on it.

Maybe my demographic is so insignificant that CDPR doesn't find it viable (although the difference in absolute player numbers between Beta and now would suggest otherwise IMHO), but they would sure make some disgruntled customers happy again if they were to give us the game we want back.

Only valid reason I see for not doing it is money. Investors - or even the devs - are probably not keen on sinking more money in Gwent.

Again, not to be a doomsayer, but if by the end of this year the game is not on the verge of collapse, I would be very, very surprised.

 

[4RM3D]

You know very well that the community is already split since the end of Beta Gwent.

True, but that doesn't mean turning the crack in the road into a Grand Canyon. I'll switch to a purely business standpoint now. There are roughly 3 groups of players:

1. Those that only play Homecoming
2. Those that only play Beta (and thus stopped playing)
3. Those that play both

CDPR needs to determine the percentage of each group. If groups 1 and 2 are close to each other and are accounting for more than 80% of the players, then it might actually be viable to maintain a separate Gwent version. In reality, group 3 is probably too big and group 2 too small. As such, it would be commercial suicide to maintain two Gwent versions.

Only valid reason I see for not doing it is money.

It's always a money issue. Maintaining a separate version costs a lot of manpower.

 

[Shabman]

True, but that doesn't mean turning the crack in the road into a Grand Canyon. I'll switch to a purely business standpoint now. There are roughly 3 groups of players:

1. Those that only play Homecoming
2. Those that only play Beta (and thus stopped playing)
3. Those that play both

CDPR needs to determine the percentage of each group. If groups 1 and 2 are close to each other and are accounting for more than 80% of the players, then it might actually be viable to maintain a separate Gwent version. In reality, group 3 is probably too big and group 2 too small. As such, it would be commercial suicide to maintain two Gwent versions.



It's always a money issue. Maintaining a separate version costs a lot of manpower.

Do you honestly think that?

It would be nice to get some actual numbers from someone, as I know there were certain figures being talked about on this forum, but I'm pretty sure the amount of players that left the game after HC is quiiiiite significant.

As to not talk out of my a**, I'm going to try and find those numbers for you.

But my instinct is that group number 2 is rather large. Only caveat would be, I don't even know if those people would actually come back if old Gwent was offered to them. I know I would, but there might be others who just completely lost interest with the whole thing.

 

[4RM3D]

Do you honestly think that?

I was talking from a business standpoint, so it doesn't matter what I think. What people forget is that player numbers were already dropping in beta. Midwinter might have had a hand in that. When you say the community is split, that fracture started longer ago than you might think. As such, trying to appease the beta-players who left might be more difficult. And, like you said, they might not even come back.

 

[Raunbjorn]

I hated HC at launch and dropped the game until CC arrived and now I'm liking it. That said, after about a month of playing Gwent again I realise how much I miss the "fun" yet still competitive decks from open beta like SpecimenGwent's Dagon Dash and NR Sabrina. Also, dumping the cards onto the board felt a lot smoother back in early open beta than now.

It's super frustrating that they didn't listen to player feedback back then otherwise we probably wouldn't have ended up with HC and mid winter even. The reward tree and story telling might be the most exciting part for me in Gwent now - I enjoy CC Gwent but I get bored after 3+ games while in open beta up to midwinter, I played the shit out of the game!

 

[G3nome]

after 2 months of HC, I'm still trying (got full collection with cc included) but man what it kills me most is the lore butchering they did with some cards I miss snowball mechanics (thankfully seasonal mode does a little bit of that)

 

[nedders]

after 2 months of HC, I'm still trying (got full collection with cc included) but man what it kills me most is the lore butchering they did with some cards I miss snowball mechanics (thankfully seasonal mode does a little bit of that)

Lore's not done that well in Gwent, never has been. Witchers in a Monster deck? Sure. Filavandrel's ability working with dwarves, not elves? Sure. Ditto for Brouver/Dwarves. Should Gimpy be allowed in a NR deck? Yennefer in a Monster deck? It's quite a long list. I think more restrictions on neutral cards would benefit the game.

 

[BoYoDes]

@nedders they did screw the lore something fierce, but the fact that you can play Yen, Geralt and Ciri in Monsters or Nilfgaard or wherever is a nitpick compared to the Homecoming design overhaul that tons of cards saw (plus said cards are neutral cards, it is a game in the Witcher world - you will want to play with some of the characters no matter what faction you chose to play with, Eredin in Monsters is an entirely different topic on itself). Cards that had specific taste to them were converted into damage this/boost that/lock/destroy artifact (Fake Ciri and Iris come to might straight away, Succubus is another example, Caretaker...). That's the bigger issue - that tons of fun combos got eliminated from the game at once.

 

[nedders]

@nedders they did screw the lore something fierce, but the fact that you can play Yen, Geralt and Ciri in Monsters or Nilfgaard or wherever is a nitpick compared to the Homecoming design overhaul that tons of cards saw (plus said cards are neutral cards, it is a game in the Witcher world - you will want to play with some of the characters no matter what faction you chose to play with, Eredin in Monsters is an entirely different topic on itself). Cards that had specific taste to them were converted into damage this/boost that/lock/destroy artifact (Fake Ciri and Iris come to might straight away, Succubus is another example, Caretaker...). That's the bigger issue - that tons of fun combos got eliminated from the game at once.

My take on Lore is that it should be relatively sensitive to the Witcher World; Witchers can absolutely be in NR, ST, NG decks obviously, but MO? Doesn't add up. But nitpicking and it ain't gonna change.

I used to have Iris played straight onto a Pit Trap, which was awesome. Fake Ciri was a very clever card and both are the best example of ruining something. Eithne was also really cool, as was Schirru. I preferred old Imlerith.

That said, I'm playing Skellige with the single best combo I've ever used!

 

[BoYoDes]

My take on Lore is that it should be relatively sensitive to the Witcher World; Witchers can absolutely be in NR, ST, NG decks obviously, but MO?...

Sensitive, but also flexible.

About Witchers in Monsters: if you've read the books you'll know that Witchers are considered as sort of monsters (well, freaks) from a big part of the population in that world. Also there's the School of the Tiger. Like I said this is not a big deal. You can stretch it to fit. You could also play with Witchers in the W3 game itself. It's A GAME for a reason and the most popular characters are bound to be seen taking different sides. How many times did Geralt actually helped/spared a certain monster because of his code? You can take it this way too.

The problem is the mechanics of the cards do not translate to their characters in the books for the most part anymore. That's what's more irritating than anything.



PS And while we are on the lore topic, here's a question: why is there not a Neutral Cahir card in the game?

 

[nedders]

Jesus christ this game.

Even with thinning, the below is a screenshot of what was left in my SK deck as we start R3;

Morkvarg would NOT appear with Birna and this is in spite of playing two rounds, plus thinning. Every mulligan saw me pull the same cards over and over (i.e. replace warship with warship) so of my provisions I didn't get 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 8.

Then on my ranged row is a Veteran down to 4 points and Birna on 5 points. Oppo plays 2 x Trebuchet. Both hits on the Veteran. Next card played, 2 hits, both "randomly" on the Veteran so gone goes Dark Mirror play. Same turn Botchling then "randomly" boosts their Myrgt to 5 points, just out of reach of my Olaf + Knut combo, in spite of FOUR other 4 STR cards being on the board. Oppo plays yet another gold - FORFEIT.

Post automatically merged: Apr 24, 2019

This is frankly unfathomable. Vs. NR deck, they had NINE cards still in the deck....yet THIS is what I'm facing:

I ended up with ZERO cards left on the board. What an utter load of crap, unfair to the max, completely biased deal and basically a complete screw-over. Thanks CDPR - literally the only game that makes me angry. In the World. Ever.

 

[BoYoDes]

To be fair: you are playing SK and complaining - it is kinda hypocritical.

On the other hand - NR is a step away of being brutally OP with the Orders system.

 

[nedders]

To be fair: you are playing SK and complaining - it is kinda hypocritical.

On the other hand - NR is a step away of being brutally OP with the Orders system.

I only have Birna for discard, hence i have 7 card left. Suffice to say, Morkvarg - at the point above - was still in my deck, as usual.

How is the deal worked out? Surely without thinning the chance/odds of the opponent getting such a ludicrously favourable deal is quite slim? The odds of not only getting the hand in the screenshot, but subsequently ensuring I have no counters is pretty incredible.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

To be fair: you are playing SK and complaining - it is kinda hypocritical.

On the other hand - NR is a step away of being brutally OP with the Orders system.

Orders is super great until every engine gets wiped from the board before they get a chance to do anything.

 

[nedders]

Orders is super great until every engine gets wiped from the board before they get a chance to do anything.

But what choice is there? My deck isn't remove and I got absolutely demolished. Makes me want to either 1) just build yet another dull as crap lock/removal deck with Usurper, or 2) uninstall the game. If that's what CDPR want, job done, but I have a feeling they'd like to add players, not lose them,

 

[BoYoDes]

Orders is super great until every engine gets wiped from the board before they get a chance to do anything.

I know that, I'm just saying if you don't whip them out - you'll be steamrolled. Especially against NR, cause no other faction has such brutal engines that snowball like that.

Remember Mangonels in Beta? There were no Orders back than, but if you'd see two of those on the other side of the board and you couldn't do nothing to remove even one, the solutions were - either give the round or forfeit the game, cause this Morvran was coming and the swing was 16 (8 Shots x2 DMG) + 9 (3 Golems) + 4 (1 Daerlan). It was rare, cause you had this couple of MUST remove cards and few removal cards in your deck (let's say a Silver Mage and Vaedermakar, maybe some tutor with Thunder, whatever). You had few cards that you need to answer and few answers for such cards in your deck. Now with Orders there are situations where you can't do nothing to stop certain effects, there is accumulation of DMG points with some units, and in NR they only have Order cards, so once you're out of answers and if it is a bit too early in the round - kiss the game good bye. There was a reason why NG Enforcers were nerfed and stopped working retroactivly back than (drop one with 6 Spies on the board and it was a instant 18 points Bronze with HUGE control options).

Engines do need a proper balance and Orders is everything but balance. Right now removal is the only balance, which is sad, cause it kills a lot of otherwise fun combos in 90% of the time. People prefer to play safe and this is the safest way. Just like netdecking.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I know that, I'm just saying if you don't whip them out - you'll be steamrolled. Especially against NR, cause no other faction has such brutal engines that snowball like that.

Remember Mangonels in Beta? There were no Orders back than, but if you'd see two of those on the other side of the board and you couldn't do nothing to remove even one, the solutions were - either give the round or forfeit the game, cause this Morvran was coming and the swing was 16 (8 Shots x2 DMG) + 9 (3 Golems) + 4 (1 Daerlan). It was rare, cause you had this couple of MUST remove cards and few removal cards in your deck (let's say a Silver Mage and Vaedermakar, maybe some tutor with Thunder, whatever). You had few cards that you need to answer and few answers for such cards in your deck. Now with Orders there are situations where you can't do nothing to stop certain effects, there is accumulation of DMG points with some units, and in NR they only have Order cards, so once you're out of answers and if it is a bit too early in the round - kiss the game good bye. There was a reason why NG Enforcers were nerfed and stopped working retroactivly back than (drop one with 6 Spies on the board and it was a instant 18 points Bronze with HUGE control options).

Engines do need a proper balance and Orders is everything but balance. Right now removal is the only balance, which is sad, cause it kills a lot of otherwise fun combos in 90% of the time. People prefer to play safe and this is the safest way. Just like netdecking.

Orders is completely outclassed by the sheer amount of removal. IMO the game should have less removal to let players build points the best they can and then only a few decent removal plays to try to disrupt your opponent.

 

[rrc]

Orders is completely outclassed by the sheer amount of removal. IMO the game should have less removal to let players build points the best they can and then only a few decent removal plays to try to disrupt your opponent.

In that case a few good engines in the game too. Otherwise, like how Removal is so prominent, engines will come and destroy you like a fly. If removal is toned down, NR will become the next SK/MO. Tone down both engines and removal or keep them at bar with each other and let MO and SK be at the top (NR trying to get their engines running and failing and ST trying either engine or control and failing to match the tempo of SK/MO)