And GWENT is uninstalled... sadly

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, so obvious. It took several thousands or tens of thousands players a week to develop this deck but a handful of testers should have done that in about three weeks, right?

For sure artifacts are out of hand at the moment but claiming this was easy to see before launch is just bullshit.
Are you joking? Sihil artifact spam Eithne was literally the second deck I'd built in an hour or so of starting PTR, just from looking at the cards. (The first deck was Eredin witchers where I fiddled with card advantage from Ciri, then I noticed the hand size limits and giant draws between rounds, which made it a waste of Eredin.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so obvious. It took several thousands or tens of thousands players a week to develop this deck but a handful of testers should have done that in about three weeks, right?

For sure artifacts are out of hand at the moment but claiming this was easy to see before launch is just bullshit.

It's so hard to imagine a deck that uses a lot of artifacts? No. They were designed badly.
 
I installed the game sunday but i remembered that artifact removal is must have so i uninstalled it back...
:p
 
did you read the part where it can banish any unit? if that's not powerful, I don't know what is.
against an artifact deck.... banish what exactly... those decks don't play from graveyard anyway... so you basically have a destroy unit for 13 resources.
 
Sad to say but CDPR eliminated many good things of the old gwent(leaders cards, wooden board, mechanics...) for give the players the feeling of the "battle"(immersive?) and now tons of people make artifacts decks...
 
Sad to say but CDPR eliminated many good things of the old gwent(leaders cards, wooden board, mechanics...) for give the players the feeling of the "battle"(immersive?) and now tons of people make artifacts decks...
like i said in another thread.

Gwent is dead...

what we are playing is the F2P Thronebreaker Multiplayer

In the books
Gwent is a card game (Originally called Barrel then Gwint) that is played by the dwarves and it has a economy/finances theme. Geralt sucked at it btw

In the Witcher Video Games
Gwent is a card game played by Geralt and his friends in taverns/keeps/inns/camping/floor (anywhere) it's a game for the common folk (like our regular playing cards) and is used a lot in gambling

In the Beta version of Gwent 1.0
Gwent is a card game standalone game simulating the card game that Geralt played in The Witcher game which is based on Gwint a card game played by the dwarves in the books.

Gwent: Homecoming
is no longer a card game but instead is the multiplayer version of the mechanics that simulates combat from the single player game Thronebreaker as a tactics turn-based battle.

see where the problem is?

The game we are playing now is Thronebreaker Multiplayer and not Gwent.
 
... The game we are playing now is Thronebreaker Multiplayer and not Gwent.
Well, hello.

Like, I LOVE Disciples II and such (still playing it sometimes to this day), but I definitely did not play Gwent for the feeling of being in battle. And (mechanics aside) I don't know what I feel right now with 3D leaders playing 2D cards on an isometric battlefield.

I mean, WTF?
 
The game we are playing now is Thronebreaker Multiplayer and not Gwent.

Which is still a card game and isn't inherently bad. However, Homecoming is getting double-tapped because it's not like Gwent and because it's unbalanced. Users have been complaining for a while now, though. Everyone wants an enjoyable game, but opinions are divided on what that entails.

Gwent was never meant to be a competitive CCG and that's the most important reason why it could never work have worked long term. There was not enough design space to make the game balanced. Some users might think there was, but they rarely look at the whole picture. Gwent would have worked for a while, but it would quickly collapse under the weight of multiple expansions. Homecoming, while trespassing into a new territory, still has potential to become something great; not Gwent, but still great, nonetheless.
 
Well, hello.

Like, I LOVE Disciples II and such (still playing it sometimes to this day), but I definitely did not play Gwent for the feeling of being in battle. And (mechanics aside) I don't know what I feel right now with 3D leaders playing 2D cards on an isometric battlefield.

I mean, WTF?

Exactly. Style is just another nail into the coffin. This "realistic" style is completely nonsense. 3D leaders, cards in size about 2 meters... it just feels wrong.
 
Which is still a card game and isn't inherently bad.
[...]Homecoming, while trespassing into a new territory, still has potential to become something great; not Gwent, but still great, nonetheless.
So you admit that Gwent is gone. Good. Now, it doesn't matter if HC is a bad, good or fantastic game. What matters is that Gwent has been abandoned and replaced with a completely diffrent game.
My question is: - what about those players (including me) who invested money in development of Gwent, hm? In my opinion we've been tricked and robbed. Don't you think? Or maybe I'm wrong?

Sorry for those well... harsh words but this is how I see this.
 
Gwent was never meant to be a competitive CCG and that's the most important reason why it could never work have worked long term. There was not enough design space to make the game balanced. Some users might think there was, but they rarely look at the whole picture. Gwent would have worked for a while, but it would quickly collapse under the weight of multiple expansions. Homecoming, while trespassing into a new territory, still has potential to become something great; not Gwent, but still great, nonetheless.

Ok, I actually want to understand this argument, which I've seen used quite often in support of Homecoming. Please explain, how exactly there is more design space now than there was before (except the provision system, which I have no problem with). In what way is this a more solid gameframe to build on with expansions and such? I am asking sincerely, because I don't see it - I see the exact opposite - and I want to know what I'm not seeing in my blind spot.

Also, to everyone else saying the new Gwent is Thronebreaker Multiplayer, I think that comparison is a bit unfair to Thronebreaker, which is actually a great little piece of game and loads of fun in my experience.
 
Hi! Yes, I also think that Gwent: Homecoming in its present state is worse than the Beta version it replaced, but this game does have potential to surpass the old Gwent for sure.

However, presently I am also feeling quite frustrated while playing this game but its not because of the visual design.. I just see too many bugs all around. The beta version was less buggier than this. Also, to me, changes to a few mechanics (like summon & resurrect) just do not feel right by the plain & simple meanings of those words.

And lastly, the lack of balance. I would prefer playing against the Beta nightmares like SK GS, NG Alchemy, SC Brouver coin-flip, MO Nekker consume, etc any day compared to the present SC Artifact - Eithne decks.

But still I am hopeful with the next few patches things will get better. And though I am very new to this game compared to a lot of other posters here, I would just request people who are quitting/planning to quit to stick around a bit more, coz a F2P multiplayer never survives without a healthy and loyal playerbase. I think this is still better than the other prevalent multiplayer card games (i.e. considering the bugs are gone).
 
Ok, I actually want to understand this argument, which I've seen used quite often in support of Homecoming. Please explain, how exactly there is more design space now than there was before (except the provision system, which I have no problem with). In what way is this a more solid gameframe to build on with expansions and such? I am asking sincerely, because I don't see it - I see the exact opposite - and I want to know what I'm not seeing in my blind spot.

The Orders/Charges/Zeal mechanics, along with being the *least* Gwent-like aspect of HC, represent a huge expansion of the design space. Ranges and row-locked powers with row limits represent a smaller expansion of the design space (not doing much that could not have been done with row-locked units pre-Midwinter).
 
My question is: - what about those players (including me) who invested money in development of Gwent, hm? In my opinion we've been tricked and robbed. Don't you think? Or maybe I'm wrong?

When you signed up for the beta, you accepted the terms of use, which includes the passage that Gwent can be shut down at any time with no refund possibility. Those were known risks. Now, we have Homecoming (which is better than shutting down Gwent). It might not be what you had hoped for, but you certainly aren't being tricked, nor robbed. Also, please realize that CDPR has given you full scrap value for your whole collection, while they just as easily could have reset your account, like they did with closed beta. You can say a lot of negative things about Homecoming, but you cannot deny that CDPR is one of the most generous, if not, the most generous game studio out there.

Please explain, how exactly there is more design space now than there was before (except the provision system, which I have no problem with).

antlers already gave a good explanation. So, let me just add one more thing. The provision system on its own is already very huge. It's so massively big that most players don't even realize the impact this system has on the design space. But let's be honest here. Having more design space is pointless when you aren't going to use it (to its full extend). The provisions needs tweaking, but at least now we have a way to balance everything.
 
I don't see any problem that could not be adressed. Artifacts need to be toned down (there are several good suggestions regarding that) as well as the sluggish gameplay with the long animations. With Foltest it is very easy to time out when using the leader ability multiple times and ordering units.
 
I feel EXACTLY the same way as the OP.

I was also a closed beta tester, played 3000+ games and followed the game throughout this long and arduous beta path, and I simply cant bear Gwent 2 - because it is what this game is.

This is NOT Gwent. This is, at best, an untested, unbalanced Gwent 2.
 
Gwent was never meant to be a competitive CCG and that's the most important reason why it could never work have worked long term. There was not enough design space to make the game balanced. Some users might think there was, but they rarely look at the whole picture. Gwent would have worked for a while, but it would quickly collapse under the weight of multiple expansions. Homecoming, while trespassing into a new territory, still has potential to become something great; not Gwent, but still great, nonetheless.

I disagree here. Gwent started with tournaments and money prizes while still in Beta. It was also marketed by lifecoach and others as a card game that requires strategy and not RNG. Strategy = competitive, RNG isn't.

As about the design space, there is less now than it was before. The reasons?

A) 2 Rows
2 rows reduces total design space by 1/3. Weather has less options now, movement units have less options now, adding new machanics like "advance 1 row per turn and do X" aren't viable with 2 rows.

B) Artifacts
When an opponent plays only artifacts on first 3 turns and you have units that interact with other units, you can't unfold your strategy. Artifacts can only interact with artifact removals which is binary and terrible design. The card pool got diluted with artifact cards that aren't interactable with anycard exept artifact removals.

C) Number of units
Good or bad, Gwent is a math (number) game. Unlike Hearthstone where objective is to destroy enemy hero, in Gwent you have to create a point difference in order to win. It's self explanatory.
- 3 rows with many units = more complicated. 2 rows with fewer units = less complicated.
- X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X7 is more complicated than X1 + X2
- Playing a shieldmaiden that does 2 damage and spawn another shieldmaiden that does 2 damage and then another shieldmaiden when the units damaged arent killed and in 1 round, or spy chains by nilfgaard, is more complicated and faster paced than playing 1 boring card and opponent replying with another boring card, which makes game slow. Not to mention when you have 10-12 units, the design space becomes bigger than having a board with 2-3 units and 2-3 uninteractable artifacts.

D) All homecoming mechanics could have been added in Gwent to make it more complicated. Orders, Zeal, Artifacts, Traps, Row specific actions that were proposed by community multiple times. The opposite though (adding Gwent mechanics to Homecoming) can't happen because Homeoming setup (2 rows, hand limit) is much more restricting. Like 2 row weather, 3 row weather, etc.
Post automatically merged:

Also forgot to say that if old Gwent had the UI (unlockables and such) of Homecoming and rolled back the gameplay to pre Midwinter, it would have been the top ccg by now.

All those years of beta testing and community feedback got wasted.
 
Last edited:
I just can't stand it anymore. it's sadly a pretty hateful experience. It's not an enjoyable game, there's no emotional attachment, it's not even very good.

It's just so choc full of broken mechanics and abuse it's unbearable. Emyr/Ves:mentor/Witcher summon + roach. What's that, 27 points in two rounds. At some point has nobody from CDPR thought "hmm, that's crap". That was what Beta was for, we've gone back to a pre-Beta game, but one i don't want to play.

Thanks for the memories, CDPR, but this one's done for me.
 
When you signed up for the beta, you accepted the terms of use, which includes the passage that Gwent can be shut down at any time with no refund possibility.
Yeah right.
You know, we all stuck in a generation where loyalty is just a tattoo, love is just a quote and lying is the new truth.
 
@RVG1926

A) 2 Rows
The difference between one row and two is huge; the difference between two and three, less so. The impact on the design space actually isn't that big. There is very little you can do with three rows that you cannot do with two. New mechanics could be introduced, but as it stands now, the three-row system was never fully utilized. Because of that, the two-row system is neither better nor worse. The point is, the three-row system didn't make Gwent better.

B) Artifacts
I agree, those need to be changed. Hence my suggestion: Equip - An Artifact Nerf Suggestion

C) Number of units
That's basically a rehash of point A. So, let me add something more. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. I am not saying Homecoming does this properly, but it still does it better than Gwent, for the very simple reason that we have provisions now to offset variance in strength.

D) All homecoming mechanics could have been added in Gwent to make it more complicated. [...]
Once again with the rows. You must really dislike having two rows, don't you? As for the hand limit, not sure what the reason behind that was; which issue CDPR wanted to fix with that. I am actually really curious about that design decision. Anyhow, I don't particularly like it, but it doesn't seem to be as bad as initial predictions would have made you believe.

E) for Extra
The design space in Homecoming is better. That is, the foundation has been laid and the tools are now available to tweak and balance the game. The provision system gives more ways to fine-tune cards and the Order system gives more ways to trigger them, allowing for new combos and different strategies. Homecoming has far more potential. That's not even disputable. However, that doesn't automatically make Homecoming a better game. That's a whole different discussion. And maybe even more important (to some), Homecoming moved away from what gave Gwent its identity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom