And GWENT is uninstalled... sadly

[kaan-akyuz]

i have had over 3000 hours on gwent.. i fell in love gwent and i want to keep going play but..... unfortunately, sadly , truly ..
New gwent really boring to play. Because we saw gwent how was good at pre-midwinter patch.
My opinion CDPR should make a poll for gwent on gog (seriously) .. i'm sure everyone want to improve old gwent.
we love you cdpr , we really know how you hard working on game..
i'm really sad for that..

 

[Guest 3945410]

I still play and enjoy Gwent, but would say that it has lost much of its identity now. It's supposed to be a card game played at taverns like in The Witcher 3, but it's currently very far removed from that. At some point CDPR shifted their main focus over to Thronebreaker, and now Gwent feels like the multiplayer-mode of that game.

The 'realistic battlefield format' feels wrong for Gwent. Would like it if they at least introduced an alternative game mode with a tavern board skin, vintage Gwent music, leaders represented by cards, and personal avatars.

I have faith that the pacing will improve over time, and that most of the removed card effects and archetypes will be reintroduced. Remain hopeful for the future and won't abandon Gwent yet (although I would have by now, if I wasn't such a fan of the Witcher setting).

 

[owein]

Well it's might different than the original, but I am having lot of fun with it. It is far better monetized than HS (where you have to spend 120 euro+ just to build a competitive deck) and involves less rng and more skill.

 

[Mancoon1980]

The devs followed instructions. I'm sure they did their best. But the game is terrible. I mean, it took several hours just to create a complete set of animated cards (where applicable) and delete all the static ones (where applicable). The game is so slow, so boring, so drab. It has been dumbed down beyond all belief.

They removed the third row when the game desperately needs more room for more cards. When someone suggested the return of the third row they were told that it was impossible and that their decks should be changed so that they don't run out of board space. How pathetic.

And after all this time as a so-called Beta (when it really was an Alpha) they released an entirely new game with little or no testing and suddenly claimed that the game was out of Beta. What a joke.

Sure the old game needed some tweaking. The silver spies and Create mechanic both needed addressing. So did the blue and red coin issue. But the game was still much better than this Homecoming abomination.

And it's clear that CD Projekt Wrekt was so focused on the game's appearance. They forgot about the game's mechanics. They forgot about strategy and tactics.

I haven't deleted the game yet. Then again, I have oodles of hard disk space.

I honestly think the best option would be for them to create a second. Exe with old gwent. That way the games are separate and those who like the new gwent can play and those who like the old can play as well. Both would share scraps, kegs etc. Since collections were milled this would be the only way. It's better to split the remaining community than lose it all. In the end future sales are going to be lost. I could not wait for Thronebreaker but I'm not buying it now (on console) because I've paid enough for my game to be ruined. If they do what's right and bring back the version I love, I have no problem buying expansions and new cards in the future. I will not support the current design with another dime though.

 

[Kingoko]

Imagine how great Gwent could be if CDPR follow those steps for HC launch :
- keep new graphics and interface etc
- keep new book rewards and achievements system
- do not change 90% of cards but only like 30%
- remove spy Thaler, Cantarella etc
- keep solution for goin first : artifact with +x power and extra mulligan
- adding artifact with just only 1 power at start of 2nd round to player who lose first round to prevent dry pass
- keep old system getting 2 cards round 2 and 1 card round 3 for faster game
- keep old leaders or make them usuable once only to speed game
- 3 rows or 2 rows : hard to say, following above steps 2 rows could be good as well if properly made.
- 3 copies of bronze cards to eliminate a bit rng and add consistency

Imo that way we could have new Gwent with great graphic, rewards, CA fixed, bonuses if you go first, and keeping most of old mechanics, resulting with great game

 

[Mancoon1980]

Imagine how great Gwent could be if CDPR follow those steps for HC launch :
- keep new graphics and interface etc
- keep new book rewards and achievements system
- do not change 90% of cards but only like 30%
- remove spy Thaler, Cantarella etc
- keep solution for goin first : artifact with +x power and extra mulligan
- adding artifact with just only 1 power at start of 2nd round to player who lose first round to prevent dry pass
- keep old system getting 2 cards round 2 and 1 card round 3 for faster game
- keep old leaders or make them usuable once only to speed game
- 3 rows or 2 rows : hard to say, following above steps 2 rows could be good as well if properly made.
- 3 copies of bronze cards to eliminate a bit rng and add consistency

Imo that way we could have new Gwent with great graphic, rewards, CA fixed, bonuses if you go first, and keeping most of old mechanics, resulting with great game

Yeah I'll agree for the most part. The 30 percent redesign could have been the abused / broken cards like Viper witches, Sabbath. I'd say keep 3 rows, this way the game play stays the same

 

[4RM3D]

[...] knowing when to pass and getting card advantage. It was pretty common to see 3.7k players making massive errors in terms of passing etc but that's ok because that's a skill of the game which they could improve upon and once they learned that they would find themselves reaching 4k.

Not quite. More often than not, you don't have a choice. Going first and not having the ability to keep up with the tempo plays means dry-passing. If you know the opponent's deck thrives in long round, you could still take the risk and not dry-pass. In the end, there is usually little skill involved, in that regard, and actual brilliant plays or mind games are few and far between.

 

[Northz]

Not quite. More often than not, you don't have a choice. Going first and not having the ability to keep up with the tempo plays means dry-passing. If you know the opponent's deck thrives in long round, you could still take the risk and not dry-pass. In the end, there is usually little skill involved, in that regard, and actual brilliant plays or mind games are few and far between.

There's less skill involved now. The second player can just dump all their bad cards and still be comfortable with bleeding. They can't be punished with CA spy or early pass even if the first player plays tempo.

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

So locks are useless now?

 

[ZenaRose]

Old card advantage system was 1000 times better than now, when all games is on autopilot

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

Just played a game. What a clusterf**k. So spam artifacts and cards that ping, then li e up ingi and stuff. No locks? Too bad.
Just seems like a really strange choice design wise. Never has the game been this uninteractive. Hell, even Gold immunity was better.

 

[billy-d-squid]

Now we're talking!!! Man, the Provision system one way let you have more golds but also force you to bring trash into your deck, and therefore:



When you have a cool themed deck in your mind and Provision system be like:
View attachment 10983721

As an old closed beta player, yes, way back when you had to apply for entry, this is probably one of the worst and most jarring aspects. The beauty of closed and even open beta was the ability to theme decks and use certain archetypes within a faction.

I'll be blunt, the provision system is crap and counter intuitive and most of themed and flavourful archetypes I knew and enjoyed tinkering about with are gone, that's not to say they were perfect, but it seem like they threw the baby out with the bath water.

I've not made up my mind yet on Homecoming, but I'm enjoying the Thronebreaker game storyline a lot, but initially the MP aspect of the game looks like a shadow of it's former self.

Disappointing CDPR, disappointing.

 

[4RM3D]

Never has the game been this uninteractive. Hell, even Gold immunity was better.

Gold immunity, don't have D-shackles? Too bad.
Artifacts, don't have removal? Too bad.

It looks similar, but in reality the situation completely different. Even so, how was gold immunity any better? Has everyone forgotten the age of Yennefer: Conjurer and Henselt Promote?

Artifacts have already been nerfed into near extinction, dropped to barely a tier 2 deck. Let's analyze the situation...

Frenzied D'ao is a 7 strength creature for 8 provisions that can destroy an artifact. A pretty good deal and even if the opponent doesn't play an artifact, you don't lose much. But if you can hit a Spear with it, the impact is huge. You destroy a 7 provision card that didn't give the opponent any value and you only had to pay 1 provision for it. It gets worse (for the opponent) with more expensive artifacts, like Sihil. That's why, if you want to run Sihil, you need to run multiple artifacts to bait out all the removal. It's basically all or nothing; either use no artifacts or use at least 4. This is what makes artifacts problematic, the binary option it gives.

 

[Shabman]

Artifacts have already been nerfed into near extinction, dropped to barely a tier 2 deck. Let's analyze the situation...

Yes, let's. What does this tell you about using provision cost to balance cards?

You are a believer. I respect that. You think it's possible to find that right combination, just between overpowered and underpowered, by tweaking provision values. I am sure it isn't.

I am willing to wait long enough to prove you wrong. Or be proven wrong, who knows?

 

[4RM3D]

Yes, let's. What does this tell you about using provision cost to balance cards?

With regards to artifacts? Nothing. This has nothing to do with artifacts, but with how artifact interaction works. Even without a provision system the problem would still persist, maybe even worse so. Sihil is a badly designed card in the same way Old Sabbath was, but less oppressive because it can be more easily removed.

I had a different suggestion to nerf artifacts. That wouldn't have fixed everything, but it would have been a step in the right direction. Furthermore, the game actually needs more cheap artifacts that aren't magnets for removal. E.g. Lesser Shield, an artifact with 3 provisions and 3 charges, same for Lesser Spear. Those are great filler cards that offer some flexibility and synergy with certain decks.

 

[boblegoute]

Wait....

In 2 years of beta,

you do not even think about doing a tournament mode while that's the basis of Witcher game.

Call me the manager of this fiasco...

 

[lightmatter]

Sihil is a badly designed card in the same way Old Sabbath was, but less oppressive because it can be more easily removed.

seriously? Old sabbath was pretty easy to remove if you had ANY kind of damage/control in your deck at all.
if your deck was sold out for point-spam, you deserved to get Sabbathed.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

It looks similar, but in reality the situation completely different. Even so, how was gold immunity any better? Has everyone forgotten the age of Yennefer: Conjurer and Henselt Promote?

How was it worse? Henselt Promote was ages ago. Why it always finds it's way into discussions on gold immunity is perplexing. Gold immunity wasn't the issue there. It was Promote. I distinctly recall running ST control (also overpowered) vs Henselt Promote and it was damn near an auto-win. The Henselt player could not abuse Promote if everything he was going to use it on got wrecked as soon as it hit the board.

I fail to see how this is any different in HC. HC has a huge number of cards where the player using them wins the game if they are not stopped. HC has a huge number of cards with insane value when you have last say. Yeah, you could conceivably interact with them if you carried the proper cards and draw them. It still isn't any different. Clearly gold immunity wasn't creating the balancing issue.

Artifacts have already been nerfed into near extinction, dropped to barely a tier 2 deck. Let's analyze the situation...

The problem with artifacts was never about balance. It was about interactivity. Before there was one source of non-interactive cards in spells. Golds were non-interactive as well but at least there was plenty of counter-play, even beyond Shackles, and a limit on their number. Now we have two forms of non-interactive cards. Artifacts and spells. Pair them together with a handful of high value units and it's excruciating to play against. The issue isn't even necessarily cards with limited interactivity. It's when a player shoves 90% non-interactive cards into their deck. It's when this style of play is viable.

The provision nerf to artifacts didn't stop them from seeing play. It only changed which decks are using them. It did nothing to address the non-interactivity problem. In a sense it improved the game play because there are less artifact/spell spam decks. If the provision system exists solely to apply band-aid fixes it's a poor system. There is no reason they cannot address these problems directly, with proper fixes, with greater frequency. They simply choose not to do so.

 

[Pruny]

I

Gold immunity, don't have D-shackles? Too bad.
Artifacts, don't have removal? Too bad.

It looks similar, but in reality the situation completely different. Even so, how was gold immunity any better? Has everyone forgotten the age of Yennefer: Conjurer and Henselt Promote?

Artifacts have already been nerfed into near extinction, dropped to barely a tier 2 deck. Let's analyze the situation...

Frenzied D'ao is a 7 strength creature for 8 provisions that can destroy an artifact. A pretty good deal and even if the opponent doesn't play an artifact, you don't lose much. But if you can hit a Spear with it, the impact is huge. You destroy a 7 provision card that didn't give the opponent any value and you only had to pay 1 provision for it. It gets worse (for the opponent) with more expensive artifacts, like Sihil. That's why, if you want to run Sihil, you need to run multiple artifacts to bait out all the removal. It's basically all or nothing; either use no artifacts or use at least 4. This is what makes artifacts problematic, the binary option it gives.

I play spears now, because weater is too expensive

 

[Kingoko]

Eay cool we like new mechsanics but why renove 90% of nice cards