And GWENT is uninstalled... sadly

[Alexandr.Gabriel]

Eithne is countered already ? Pray tell, how do you counter it without sacrificing other matchups ?
And no I didn't forget about Greatswords or other decks, I teched against them, and it worked nicely without sacrificing much. I had a reveal NG deck that if I drew well I obliterated Greatswords, Nekkers and Sabbath, they gave up on the first round most of the time, only Alchemy and Spellatel defeated that deck nearly every time, but had good matchups against pretty much everything else. It was fun, I would play Adda meme deck from time to time and win with that as well, the game was more balanced, faster, more fun, right now it is not, feels like a chore to play. I want it to be good, but I want it to be good now, or in the very near future, not after 2 or 3 months or more, when everybody stopped playing and giving a damn.

Just wait for New cards. These cards are from. A Basic set but they Will launch New expansions

 

[Archpriest]

You seem to be pedantic with the word some his points are still valid he doesn't expand on it because it would be one long post and it's been mentioned before plenty of times, which players who are defending HC ''Gwent'' conveniently forget or don't address.

Pedantic? I mean, right now I'll claim that the majority loves HC and only a few ones complain about it. Will you ask me to prove it? of course you will. So, my point stands - sweeping generalisations are worthless.

Also, what valid points about game design? Haven't seen one yet. Care to provide?

Whereas some or even the word fewer is more apt for players defending HC ''Gwent''. Judging by the posts on here and reddit and the overall impression I get for the reception of ''HC'' alongside with the concerns of some pro players not mentioning those who have left already, I feel more rather than some players feel that the game no longer resembles Gwent that they played/tested in beta. More things have been stripped than added some of the things that have been ''readded'' were in some form or shape in the beta before anyway.

You yourdelf just wrote that players "feel". "Feel" =/= fact. It just isn't. As for some "pro" players, couldn't care less. 2.5 million in prize money is better than 250k, don't you think. And some of them made their minds before HC hit and just rant about it to make the transition seem not... monetary based, if I may. Which is strange to me, because they don't owe anyone any explanation. But be as it may.

I'll give an example; Gold immunity was removed on the basis that it is uninteractive gameplay despite having some cards that would interact with them [Shackles+more] and the fact that you only had a cap of 4 Golds in the deck. Now instead of creating more cards to interact with Gold cards they went ahead and removed the Gold immunity all together on the basis of freeing up design space.
Fast forward to HC ''Gwent'' you now have Artifacts that can't be interacted with unless you place the few cards in your deck that do interact with them, you also have cards that have the tag ''immune'' [essentially gold immunity] that you can't interact with of which neither have a 4 limit cap for inclusion. The cards you've included for Artifact removal will literally be useless facing a deck that does not play Artifacts. Where as before your shackles could still see play because every deck would include golds it's not the case here however. It's as Binary as the 2 row system that some players gush over that it has meaning. Now It's hard even if I were a CDPR fanboy to defend this nonsense.

Gold immunity had to go, given the design the game had at the time and the increasing number of cards. And yes, that did free design space because instead of carrying otherwise worthles shackles, etc. people were able to upgrade their decks. Ironically, Artifacts act in a similar way today (with more AND better ways to counter them) but people seem to have nostalgia about gold immunity.
Besides, did I say that Artifacts are fine? You seem to confuse balance with game design. Current game design has a higher potential than a dead end beta Gwent. In my opinion, of course.

The other example I can give is that of the 2 rows rather than 3 rows sytem which I touched upon above.. enough with this farce. We now have 2 rows that supposedly have meaning.. It shouldn't be difficult for even newcomers to the game to see that the supposed meaning of the rows is very binary. If I place Swordmaster on the Melee Row she get's her effect if I place her on the Ranged row she has no effect, this isn't very engaging or meaningful in the slightest. I also can not see so far what they did with 2 rows that they could not do with 3 rows. It is as clear as day that they have a mobile version in the pipeline of which is why the game was systematically simplified and stripped of it's core mechanics.

They do have meaning. Excuse me, are you implying that beta 3 rows had more/same amount meaning in them than current 2? If so, I don't see how we're going to continue this conversation. Also, current system prevents you from just slamming points and flooding the board, among other things. It my book, it's good.

Those two points are in line with game design which ultimately affects balance, Hand limit is essentially a game design that supposedly tried to ''balance'' stop you from drypassing to gain card advantage. However it's not the best solution or even a good solution to a problem that wasn't even an issue in closed beta. In CB you had other ways of obtaining card advantage, so wether you lost or won the coin flip it didn't matter as much.

Please, the only other way of obtaining card advantage was huge tempo play and pass. We're going back to the "point slam" point. Not saying that current solution is the best. But it sure affects the game in better way. And don't tell me that you just need to play garbage to keep 10 cards intact, it doesn't work that way.

Ui; This is more prefence than anything else if you were to argue about it but if I were to create a game I would defineitely take the feedback of the players who were to play it. Things as simple as making the ground/dirt [Board] brighter for players to see what they're doing, I personally feel the tavern board style of Beta gwent looked more clean and less cluttered which I prefered amongst other reasons such as how the game was intended to be played lorewise. Alot of players also don't find the 3D cheerleaders on the ground fitting as they seem cartoony and don't fit with the witcher vibe, they'd belong in something like Hearthstone though. The game also feels slow and clunky with the animations and cards being dropped rather than placed. I feel this is shared with alot of players not just a few but I could be wrong.

Again, "a lot of players". That "a lot" may amount to 10k or to 200. Let's use less misleading terms, shall we?
UI is better in terms of usage and the rest is a matter of preference and personal taste. So again, not a "good or bad" argument.

The key point here though is that alot of changes were not asked for and were implemented anyway whilst removing the core mechanics. They kept doing doing this update after update. They removed Gold immunity, Factions Passives, made most units Agile if not all, 3rd row removal, 3 Bronzes down to 2, Silvers being removed. Weather was bad In CB yes but in HC it feels like an afterthought. Then there's the cards themselves being once again changed for the most basic bland iterations of themselves that lack flavour in favour of mostly Damage/Boost/Ping abilities. Archtypes being blurred or nonexistent, before you had atleast 2-3 for each faction now it feels like you're playing Arena in Ladder which the 2 bronzes cap and provision system reinforces. It's more like did I draw my high provision cards, no okay I'll play down to 7 or 4 pass then redraw a full hand of which hopefully I do draw my higher provision cards. The lucky players who do draw good gets to save his mulligan's isn't that great for the player who doesn't.. kappa. When you do draw your high cost cards players play down to 7 or 4 cards anyway and you can mention the exceptions but I'm stating for the most part. Want the last say play down to 4 and drypass round 2 with a full hand in round 3. Card advantage is less of a thing so rounds feel forced.

"Changes were not asked fo? Are you implying that average Joe should have a decision making in game design? Really?
SC faction passive caused an uproar, for example. Gold immunity produced THE dumbest Henselt Promote meta in the short history of Gwent. Units tied to the rows were Igni lineup. Bronzes down to 2 increases diversity and skill ceiling, imo. SIlvers weren't removed per-say, they are now epic golds.
Gwent always was damage/boost and you always won lost by the amount of points. Now, it's more complicated, if you're asking me.
And again, you only list things you don't like without any argument on why it's bad.

I mean the provisions system makes it easier to balance superficially by tweaking numbers but the game feels like a shell of itself with the potential of better balance for a simplified game. Of which so far even the balance aspect of it isn't even it's highlight.

Shell of itself? What does that even mean? The game is different. Doesn't mean it's worse/better. Because I don't see any argument so far that proves it's worse. "Feels not Gwent" isn't that, I'm afraid.

I can touch upon more but this post is already a book and I apologise.

No problem. I want to see a compelling argument on WHY these changes are bad. Mind you, if balance and cards like Xavier aren't addressed properly and the patches/expansion prove to be something I do not like, I'll move on. But so far, I do not see a reason for that. On the contrary, I like what I see in design so far.

 

[Mr_Mugglez]

Apart from Archpriest there's 2 or 3 other apologists, not including the mods. Tough crowd huh guys? Hundreds aren't happy, rightly so.
Ever wondered why Arena came about? Now you know, I never played Arena myself, no interest. It got shoe-horned in anyway, to the game we've all been playing for nearly two years, then that game got binned...RIP GWENT zero shits given by them...
They gave up on Gwent and focussed on TB, so now we have a MP version of TB for free. I suspect the online version will get minimal support? Let's see.

I've heard great stuff about TB.

 

[-Arkane]

Pedantic? I mean, right now I'll claim that the majority loves HC and only a few ones complain about it. Will you ask me to prove it? of course you will. So, my point stands - sweeping generalisations are worthless.

It's not the impression I get from browsing forums/vids/twitch atleast or from the pros. I've just seen frustration or the few vague/supposed justifications for things, like this post and only on reddit which mostly itself has a negative outlook on homecoming. Sorry had to use the word mostly but I may have to wear my rose tinted glasses to see otherwise. So you feel Interest level for ''HC Gwent'' is high and there's a buzz of a new CCG being released which is trending.. interesting.

Also, what valid points about game design? Haven't seen one yet. Care to provide?

I gave a brief example about the hand size limit and the mulligan system you can read it again.

Also having 4 golds 6 silvers and 3 copies per Bronze cards was part of the game design. Players have stated many times that 3 bronzes retained consistency, 2 bronzes lowers consistency in favour of diversity yes but with less tutoring you no longer see your entire or near there of deck. This means you're more at the mercy of your draws. This combined with the mulligan/provision system the player who goes first and draws his high provision cards get's to also keep his mulligan's for the later rounds. It punishes the player who draws bad even more so, he/she has to either give up r1 or use his mulligans and then hope to draw good in the later rounds. Silvers transitioned the power gap between Bronzes and Golds, you had silver spies and cards such as Brouver Hog that would bring out a silver card from your deck as it's ability. Point I'm making is that silver cards had their indentity in the game too, don't see why they were removed. It seems you don't understand the arugment here, I'm stating that Gwent had alot of unique aspects to it that were removed and no one had asked for those changes and nothing has been shown in HC to suggest that they had to be removed. Which on top of the new changes brings it's own issues.

Actually since I aprehend an average joe's outlook argument as a response i'll link you Freddybabe's take on it.

As for some "pro" players, couldn't care less. 2.5 million in prize money is better than 250k, don't you think. And some of them made their minds before HC hit and just rant about it to make the transition seem not... monetary based, if I may. Which is strange to me, because they don't owe anyone any explanation. But be as it may.

How do you know some of them made their minds up before HC, I wouldn't just assume like that especially when one of them was the beta champion and helped grow the community. You mention the average joe later in this post I don't think the pro players who have valid concerns about the game such as Lifecoach/Freddybabes of which the latter still plays should just be dismissed because of a conspiracy you have.

Gold immunity had to go, given the design the game had at the time and the increasing number of cards. And yes, that did free design space because instead of carrying otherwise worthles shackles, etc. people were able to upgrade their decks. Ironically, Artifacts act in a similar way today (with more AND better ways to counter them) but people seem to have nostalgia about gold immunity.
Besides, did I say that Artifacts are fine?

So gold immunity had to go but Artifacts had to be introduced i'm confused. It was more than a shackles you had faction cards that could interact with Golds such as Iorveth/Vernon Roche, Keawani Seargent just as a few examples. The point that you've skipped is that why couldn't they make more cards to interact with golds if they were to introduce Artifacts later on which force you to play specific removal for them essentially gold cards.. I also stated that golds had a 4 limit cap whereas Artifacts you can run as many as you like. You mention ''more and better ways'' to counter artifacts.. mind explaining in what way they are supposedly better instead of the generalisation that you so despise. I mean to me it's as binary as it gets. I don't seem to confuse balance with game design I think you do.

They do have meaning. Excuse me, are you implying that beta 3 rows had more/same amount meaning in them than current 2? If so, I don't see how we're going to continue this conversation. Also, current system prevents you from just slamming points and flooding the board, among other things. It my book, it's good.

You didn't answer the question, I asked what could you do with the current 2 rows system that you couldn't with having 3 rows. Might wanna read that one again instead of deflecting and bringing up a comparison to beta which I didn't mention for good reason.

Please, the only other way of obtaining card advantage was huge tempo play and pass. We're going back to the "point slam" point. Not saying that current solution is the best. But it sure affects the game in better way. And don't tell me that you just need to play garbage to keep 10 cards intact, it doesn't work that way.

Tempo play with good reading of your opponent and managing of your resources instead of waiting to play down to 7 or 4 cards, or are you talking about Gwent after midwinter update when you mention your point slam. I'm also interested how do you gain card advantage now, is it not also ultimately in regards to tempo or is it that rare that you don't know yet. The witcher trio seem interesting.. Yo have also elegantly skipped my point about rounds being forced in regards to the hand limit. You didn't answer my question about going down to 4 cards and drypassing the second for a full hand in round 3 with the last say, just one example.

Again, "a lot of players". That "a lot" may amount to 10k or to 200. Let's use less misleading terms, shall we?
UI is better in terms of usage and the rest is a matter of preference and personal taste. So again, not a "good or bad" argument.

You seem to be bogged down with semantics again and it's a shame, you talk about generalisations and do exactly that in your posts. I'm curious how is the UI better in terms of use in comparison to before?

"Changes were not asked fo? Are you implying that average Joe should have a decision making in game design? Really?
SC faction passive caused an uproar, for example. Gold immunity produced THE dumbest Henselt Promote meta in the short history of Gwent. Units tied to the rows were Igni lineup. Bronzes down to 2 increases diversity and skill ceiling, imo. SIlvers weren't removed per-say, they are now epic golds.
Gwent always was damage/boost and you always won lost by the amount of points. Now, it's more complicated, if you're asking me.

Imagine having a community for beta feedback silly average Joes. You're right though I'm an average Joe like yourself so I was hoping if I lead you into the direction of the pro's of the game you might take some of their feedback but that doesn't seem to be the case. Units tied to a row with 3 rows yes, Igni just one card made you actually think instead of dropping cards willy nilly on the board imagine if they implemented row abilities too back then, some cards had agile before the update you seem to forget and confuse which period you're talking about, since after the agility update your point is moot. Oh btw igni's still in the game in this 2 row system with binary placements just a thought. What's the difference between Epic golds and Golds i'm curious. You also need to explain how 2 bronzes increases the skill ceiling instead of just putting imo, remember were ''average Joes'' here. Henselt promote meta... yh wasn't the only deck played in the meta are you implying this was just garbage to watch and a skilless period of Gwent.. linked for your convenience

Gwent had alot more interesting and flavourful cards is what I was referring to but yes ultimately Gwent is about numbers just like CSGO Is point and shoot right.

And again, you only list things you don't like without any argument on why it's bad.

I have but you have a wonderful way of skipping it and generalising things in response and then complaining about others using words like some and feel as a general impression of how players view HC as a fully released game.

Shell of itself? What does that even mean? The game is different. Doesn't mean it's worse/better. Because I don't see any argument so far that proves it's worse. "Feels not Gwent" isn't that, I'm afraid.

It means that a good number of mechanics were stripped away from vintage gwent in favour for HC thus removing alot of it's identity. [sorry had to use the word alot]

No problem. I want to see a compelling argument on WHY these changes are bad. Mind you, if balance and cards like Xavier aren't addressed properly and the patches/expansion prove to be something I do not like, I'll move on. But so far, I do not see a reason for that. On the contrary, I like what I see in design so far.

I wish that were it's only problems but yes, we seem to have different outlook/vision for the game, which clearly it's too late for me but I will sitck around for one last month and see what changes.

 

[BornBoring]

Two things:

1.:
If the focus of HC was on multiplayer gwent it definitely looks like a failure. The playerbase is divided and a significant amount of players will stop playing. If they released an improvent version of pre-MW gwent the community feedback probably would have been much better. If they want to attract new players now is the best time to do so, but because of balance issues and bugs the game still looks like a beta, which will obviously not help the game. Things won't become easier when artifact arrives.

2.:
Probably the main focus was on thronebreaker anyway. Considering how generous gwent has always been (and it's even more generous now) and that longtime players will have a complete collection by now anyway they won't sell many kegs. They'll make a lot more money with thronebreaker and future witcher tales than with multiplayer gwent.

Btw, you can find some interesting information here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/9tks8i "What's interesting, most of the Homecoming cards were redesigned by just 2 of designers. Rysik and Ostry. "
Yeah, that's how the game looks like......

 

[jgolden234]

Unfortunately indeed. Instead of letting the first meta settle down, pitchforks and torches. In fact, I think that letting this meta to brew for a month or even more is a must to help balancing the damn thing. Completely new game needs time. Then some tweaks (as with artifacts) and some changes (as with Xavier, which I consider one of the most problematic designs in HC) should improve Gwent immensely.

Yes, the pitchforks and torches, I am a little stunned. I feel like everyone is acting as if they have been playing this version for years. Cdpr has to gather data and make wise balance changes or else everyone will start fussing that they had a knee jerk reaction and nerfed something into the ground. Gwent fans seem very hard to please.

 

[boblegoute]

Imagine The Dream for ps4 players!!! Gwent beta is available yet on Ps4 and allows forget for 1 month this abominable Homecoming

 

[Ravzar]

I don't like the game. I played beta for hundreds of hours. This is a completely different game. The bronze packages are boring. I auto lose the game if my opponent runs a single card like xavier lemmons if I play a graveyard deck. Orders are slow and boring. The handsize limit and 3 cards per round is awful.

What annoys me really is how deck building has suffered. There is no quest deck like spellatael where you are buffing your sentries for a finisher. Shupe is dead since the card is so bad (like honestly what happened to shupe mage?). Building an alchemy deck to support witchers is gone, as is building your deck in other otherwise non-standards ways to support a finisher like ciri nova. Deck consistency has gotten worse since there is less thinning and only two of each bronze.

They had a good game already. It just needed a little bit of balancing and some new cards to breathe fresh air into it. Monsters may have needed a bit of an overhaul, especially Eredin, and cursed units and discard bran needed some help, and tweaks to greatswords/alchemy, but overall I don't think the game had to change this much for there to be an entirely new game.

 

[Shabman]

They do have meaning. Excuse me, are you implying that beta 3 rows had more/same amount meaning in them than current 2? If so, I don't see how we're going to continue this conversation.

Please stop with these ridiculous emotions, you who claims to love facts. Yes they did have more/same amount of meaning in them. Because for rows to have real meaning, you'd have to have one of the two situations:

1) Row-locked units with agile units being more costly (in terms of provisions or whatever)

2) Row positioning being part of some larger tactics or strategy, such as "If X units on melee row, and Y on ranged row - trigger Z effect" and other such things.

Having to choose between two abilities depending on row does not confer meaning, no matter how much you want to repeat it to yourself, because there is NO CONSEQUENCE. Yes, you get a different effect depending on where you place your card, but you might as well have placed it on your front porch, because nothing will change. Why do I say this?

Row-punishing (whether vertical, horizontal, weather etc.) is a joke now. Do you know what I used to run in the good old days? Crow's Eye with Eithne.

1st volley (tutored by Elven Mercenary): 4-4-4 = 12 points
2nd volley (Elven Mercenary): 5-5-5 = 15 points
3d volley (Elven Mercenary): 6-6-6 = 18 points
4th volley (Eithne): 6-6-6 = 18 points

That's 63 points of row punishment, and it doesn't even take into account bringing in a few Elven Sages for extra repeats (which admittedly I didn't do very often because of the rest of my deck).

Things like that, coupled with weather, devastating pit traps, Merigold's Hailstorm, Geralt: Igni and you-name-it, there was a real threat, and once you got the slightest whiff of what your opponent was playing you would definitely adjust the placing of your units. Nowadays, it really doesn't matter where you place your cards, because not only are row punishing effects diminished, but they are less interesting to include in your deck since there are less units to target - and for less points at that. Only decent thing I've seen so far is Pit Trap, which can provide some value if you keep moving your opponent's units to one row. But it's still a far cry from the offensive plays we were used to.

Compare 63 points of Crow's Eye (which was almost sure to find a target since it targeted the highest unit on each row), to Dol Blathanna bomber hitting for 2 points on each row. Oh wait, there's only two rows now, so it hits twice. 4 points. You can make up that gap instantly and even regain the advantage. But with Crow's Eye, even the first volley gave 12 points. Yes, cards had way more points back then, but not every deck could answer that with a 12-pt play to put you back in tempo. For ST the higher average was 11, for instance.

In conclusion, just because there's row abilities now doesn't mean the rows have meaning. And the big lie was that "oh all this cool new stuff we're building is too complicated to balance for three rows. So if you guys want rows with meaning, you're gonna have to let go of that third row". Lol please. Do you truly believe these simple abilities are too complicated to work on three rows? Do you TRULY believe this is about ANYTHING other than making the card art bigger on the board?

You say you want arguments on why this game is worse. They are all around you, but you refuse to take heed. Can't blame you, in fact I am happy that you're enjoying yourself. But when people are telling you, "I am not having fun", that is a solid argument in itself, and a crucial one for game devs. Because it doesn't matter if this game is great in the eyes of God. It matters what players think, and if enough of them decide this is not a good use of their time, guess what's going to happen?

Perhaps one day you will be stuck on that "Searching for worthy opponent" screen, and it won't be a bug...

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

In this post my arguments are based on the survival of this game, rather than the current way this game works, which some people may dislike.

With the launch of Homecoming, Gwent will be better positioned to capture market shares from other online TCG's.
The improved visuals moves the game from a niche to a mainstream segment. Lets not forget that the previous niche branded as a "competitive TCG" was abandonned by pro players such as Lifecoach and whoever elese you are worshipping and using as a channel of inspiration.
Some issues that current players dont like such as artifact decks, can be fixed by making small changes, such as requiring the artifact to be played next to a unit, in order to use it.
Addition of new expansions and reworking of existing cards along with new mechanics will give more deck variety, and recapture interest of existing player base.

At medium complexity with some level of RNG the game is able to attract new players. Long matches that require deep thought are not suited for average consumer with limited time frame. New players are easily attracted if they are having fun the first time they play this game. If it is too complex without being fun, then acquiring new audiencewill not be easy.
Lets not forget that it is the growth of the player base is what will ensure the survivability of this game, and not the existing player base. The existing player base has already full collecting and might be reluctant to spend more money on this game. Hence this player base is no longer of relevance, from a commercial view. I feel pity for CDPR to use most of their attention on this saturated audience.

New games such as Artifact which is expected to have some complexity could dismantle my arguments, provided that it is able to grow faster than the current Gwent-Homecoming. But we will have to see.

 

[Mashajab]

Apart from streamers there's no other place to gather info, right? Also, streamers like Pumpkn, OceanMud, etc. aren't going anywhere and they said so. So...

In other words, you hate the changes. That's ok. Game isn't going to be bad because of that though.

well , that might be only good count.. less streamers = more income.. I really respect both of who you mentioned, I love their videos, but world is not just kind place and full time streamers have to make money to sustain their need.. both of them doing only Gwent.. so.. math..

 

[Mikirobi]

Sorry guys but this new version of gwent is awful, I spent hours with the beta gwent/day but now probably uninstall.

 

[-Arkane]

lol brilliant.

 

[1990BW]

Gwent is not out of beta homecoming is beta 2.0.
There are so many things I hate about it but the biggest problem I have is that all the fun archetypes from 'beta' are gone.
Very good worked-out archetypes such as NG spies, NG reveal, WH weather and NR armor are gone or changed in a wrong manner.
I don't like artifects because they are so annoying to play against and cards that do devastating blows such as scorch and epidemic shouldn't be in the game.
There is also a lot of RNG in the game while the devs promised it would be minimal/removed.
Gameplay aside I love the looks of the game, the new interface, rewardpoints and achievements.
For now I've uninstalled the game and wait until it get patched.
I hope artifects will be removed and the devs focus more on consistency and engine gameplay.

 

[ZenaRose]

1. Freddybabes all right said in his video - HC now is crazy powerfull artifacts not fun to play against, 3 witchers in 90% of decks, noncense rng fiesta everywhere.
2. 2 rows and 10 card limit was only made to port game into mobile devices in future, probably to milk new
undemanding players. Gameplay overall also was simplified to attract more players.
3. Rumor that balance was made only by 2 designers confirms the fact that the game does not have high hopes, CDPR spent all its resources for Thronebreaker / Cyberpunk 2077

In general, the launch of the game can be considered a failure. But I still have hope in HC, if devs will OFTEN balance game in right direction, it will be playable.

 

[RVG1926]

In conclusion, just because there's row abilities now doesn't mean the rows have meaning.

Well said.

Even if "reach" and "row abilities" gave meaning to rows, then they would give twice more meaning in a game with 3 rows.
Imagine catapults and siege engines with 5 reach being safer than melee and ranged units. Stronger units having limited reach. Also adds more options in balancing / nerfing a card.

 

[el_Bosco]

But I still have hope in HC, if devs will OFTEN balance game in right direction, it will be playable.

Doesnt matter if its balanced or not for most of us. Not being balanced is bad, ofc course. The worst is not being Gwent.

 

[balander10]

Well i am not pissed at CDPR got Thronebreaker already and enjoying it (though difficulty wise its a joke even on highest difficulty). Its not like we paid to buy Gwent and the time we invested in the Beta was worth pretty much 10 Thronebreakers...

I am however buffled at why they had to move so far away from a Beta that was tested for so long and which gave them such a tremendous feedback. In any case Homecoming will get patched and improved and might turn into a top notch game someday but the problem is how many of us will be around till then. I do still play it last days but only because i have nothing else to play right now. Its not a bad game but compared to the Beta it feels way to slow paced and clumsy. It just isn't Gwent anymore like so many people have mentioned already. Also despite all the cards being revamped it feels that the viable decks per faction are even less then before.

Maybe some simple changes like adding an old style board can help us negate that feeling without changing their masterplan for HC. We will see how things turn out but its not even a matter of having patience or not atm. They said something about first patch coming out a month from now (i might be mistaken think i read something about it)? That's way to late if that's the case pace of the game needs to be addressed asap. Watching the streamers snoring isn't fun.

 

[Mancoon1980]

Some people. Let's not make sweeping generalisations here.

Playing since day one of CB. Not planning to go anytime soon.

And you know that because you have data to support this claim and you've been private to the CEO meetings at CDPR? Oh, wait...

No but at the end of the day they are a company. Th

Imagine The Dream for ps4 players!!! Gwent beta is available yet on Ps4 and allows forget for 1 month this abominable Homecoming

It's actually pretty dead. Takes a long time to even find a match. I think most have moved on. What matches I do find are more netdeckers exploiting what was bad about beta gwent. Pretty sad, I was hoping people would be creative and try different things since we only had a month

Post automatically merged: Nov 3, 2018

I hope this whole Gwent thing serves as an eye opener for all the fanboys out there. Yes they are a little different in their commercial and pro-consumer strategies (especially when considering the scum that generally plagues the medium) but CDPR is still looking out for profit in the 1st place, just as any other business.

----//----

About this whole HC thing... As a early closed beta player, with well over 600h in gwent in the last 2 years, i just feel cheated and revolted. I feel like all the time i've played and provided feedback were for NOTHING. CDPR plough through their "vision" of the game, despite overwhelming community feedback otherwise, insisting on things we didnt wanted and that they still havent provided reasonable explanations (vide 2 rows).

Now we have a game that is NOTHING what we, as a community, wanted. A game that is UNTESTED and that will required MONTHS to become even balanced, let alone fun to play. Thats why i called it Gwent 2.

They had a solid base to work with after 2 years of beta (even if I disagree with this classification. the game was officially launched with open beta, for all intents and purposes). They just needed to fix a handful of problems the game had. A full iteration of the game was completely unnecessary and uncalled for and the results are clear: gwent is now just a background for thronebreaker and will most likely vanish after the initial fuzz with the single player is over and when the big boys of TCG will arrive.

For me, personally, it is sad as this was the ONLY card game i've played and, in the end, i leave the game with a bad taste in my mouth and a completely different opinion of CDPR. I wasnt impressed with what was revealed of Cyberpunk and i'm keeping my expectations low also because of this massive gwent screw-up. I'm just glad I didn't invest 1€ on kegs because instead of being just sad and disappointed, I would instead be effing furious.

I agree with all you say. However I feel the fool because I spent $200 dollars to support the game I loved. Only to realize that money was used used to fund a different game that would later be sold back to me. I believe gwent was designed to be throwaway now. After the console release of throne breaker I believe the cash will be grabbed and the game shut down. It's obvious now it was thrown together and poorly balanced. This would explain why the multilayer is generous, because it's throwaway after everyone buys throne breaker

 

[Mr_Mugglez]

"It's obvious now it was thrown together and poorly balanced. This would explain why the multilayer is generous, because it's throwaway after everyone buys throne breaker"

That's definitely a possibility as it seems they ignored many players advice with regards to changes to the OB version. It will be more obvious if they do indeed shut down the MP version in the near future.

Tat would really surprise me though.