You see, your points only say that some people have problems with those things. They don't prove that the game itself is bad. There is a big difference between those things.name 1 other game that you beta tested a completely different game than 1.0 release?
i know the forums are a very small sample of players, but for every "like" there are 5-6 "dislikes" in the game
people have problems with mechanics
people have problems with the UI
people have problems with the balancing
people have problems with the change in development direction
to me this game no longer feels like Gwent. This feels like Thronebreaker Online....
I don't want to play Thronebreaker Online, and neither do many others.
I agree. Maybe, in a few months, I'll decide that the potential I see in HC went the wrong way., as I perceive it. At this point though, I am basing my current opinion on what I see. Or I think I see.Might be true. This has less to do with HC and more to do with post Midwinter being a complete mess. As you said earlier, Xavier is highly questionable. Banishing an entire graveyard isn't a mechanic where it's a wait and see approach. A card with such an ability making it past the planning stages is concerning. There are several areas in HC where the same holds true.
I wouldn't say the sky is falling or HC is a terrible product. Despite the fact I personally dislike some of the changes it's a step up from post Midwinter. I still dislike some of the changes. Hand limit being the worst offender. There are other changes I do feel were improvements. Regardless, most of the "bad" boils down to dealing with it and adjusting at this point.
You not seeing the potential doesn't mean there is none.i dont see the potential, Gwent Beta had that but cdpr was too lazy to release monthly balance patches.
Beta is just that. Obviously, CDPR decided that old Gwent had no future (and in this case, I agree with them).Cd projekt was not correct with betaplayers who invested in the game to have another game.
Points 1 and 2 are about balancing, not game design. Sorry, hand limit does change the way you play but it's a change in strategic approach. Previously, it essentially boiled down to "did I draw my spy", "did I draw good in r3. So far, this isn't the case. And I think it's a good change.Here to give my opinions on HC as a player since closed beta and thousands of hours of playtime (pro ladder every season)
1. Hand limit seems to be a bad addition to game, no longer startegic passes because opponent can just play down to 4 cards (or 7 in r2) and still go to last round on even cards. Dry passing really wasn't/isn't a problem in beta. It always comes with a risk and for creative deck builders gives big advantage when opponent dry passes r1 assuming you play certain deck and then you use something totally else that excels in long rounds.
2. Artifact spamming isn't an issue if hand limit doesn't exist, they can't play multiple artifacts w/o any units if they can't always get full hand even when their opponent passes 30-40 points ahead. Also the fact that you can activate artifacts same turn and buff opponents/damage own units and then just scorch/epidemic/schirru it all away (had a game myself where on last card I just buffed my opponents units to make all 5 of them into 34 power (and opponent could do nothing to block that) and then scorched them all. wonder how my opponent reacted to going from 160+ points up to losing the game in a single turn.. propably quit the game.
3. We get less deck thinning while getting less mulligans w/o blacklisting makes the game way more RNG heavy than OB ever was (including the midwinter create fiasco) Often I lose/win games the moment cards are dealt due to getting great/horrible starting hand.
4. I do like about everything else about HC but these 3 things make the game unplayable for me (for once I feel I'm lucky for being console player and still being able to play the beta)
I will keep on trying the game but everytime I do, I get frustrated with the meta. Sure you can counter artifacts by discarding your cards but that is not very enjoyable gameplay. In beta I was always able to make decks that had some way to beat all "netdecks" in atleast some way (sure some depended on winning coinflip & drawing some excact card but still it was a chance), doesn't feel possible in HC. Running into multiple unwinnable match ups in row is quite frustrating and then switch deck so you're teched against w/e you lost against and lose against all other decks basically. Playing OB on xbox I am having tons of fun even tho meta hasn't shifted much for over 6 months.
Sincerely yours, Rizla for20
Point 3 - beta Gwent had too many tutors and too many powerful tutors at that. If you're asking me, 2 bronze card limit caters to more diversity and higher skill ceiling (if balanced correctly).
About beating netdecks. From what I see, people are already beating artifacts and "best" decks from the first few days without losing to other decks. Besides, netdecks are there for a reason, those are usually the most optimised decks. However, at this stage of HC it's rather laughable to talk about meta. It needs time to settle. Probably the best example would be 6 months prior HC. At the beginning, it was GS. It stayed a powerful deck but I made to GM with 4 or 5 different decks during that time. It's because people find ways to adjust and counter. Hence, my point about current "meta".
Again, I'm not saying HC is perfect or will be great regardless. But it has tools to be if not great then very, very good.
Lastly, if someone says that he doesn't like how Gwent has changed, it's totally fine. We have different tastes. I respect that. But when someone starts shouting "this is a bad game" without providing any argument, I won't listen. It's just not worth listening to. Not at this stage.