And GWENT is uninstalled... sadly

[paugomez86]

I've only played Gwent for a month more or less and so I didn't know how the game was in it's previous versions (open and closed beta). For me, the game as far as I played, is quite enjoyable, beautiful and generous in F2P terms. However, I read lots of complaints about "old" players who reject and hate the Homecoming version (which is the final release version I guess) so I've decided to analyse they're points of view, respectful opinions, etc. I'd also like to know which features have changed in the game between the beta and the HC versions but in most threads I only read hate, "RIPs", streamers' and viewers' data, and people saying that they're leaving Gwent to play other games such as Magic or Pay$tifact (sorry I meant Artifact).

I've read complaints about the "great annoyance" of having to click the end turn button (I hope you got the sarcasm). I've read about the deletion of the third row which is, in my opinion, "not as bad" (the game still has it's tactical feature). I've also read about performance problems which are, in my opinion and experience, bullshit. My PC is "stone-age" and the game works perfectly (just some framerate drop when there are many premium cards on screen). And in these cases the framerate drops affect only the cards animations which is much better than most AAA games today (shitty console ports, bad optimisation products, etc) which are almost unplayable if you don't have a NASA quantum computer. Eventually I've read about many reworks in cards that, in opinion of those players, ruined completely the game. It seems that before HC there were also more interaction between cards. And so here is my point. I'm trying to understand how those "changes" and "reworks" would possibly ruined literally "such a incredible" game as it was before and is making so much players to leave the game. And if those changes have been so serious, why CRPR haven't pushed these update as beta before releasing it as a final version and waited for the feedback as they had been doing for the entire development and beta versions (according to most people CDPR has always been listening the community feedback).

In my opinion, and haven't played more than for one month, these flaws are not so critical to make the game so bad and so "unplayable", or "disappointing" as many say. Maybe some units wouldn't be able to be played in a specific row (in terms of military strategy a trebuchet in a melee row may be pointless) as it was in Witcher 3's Gwent as I remember. Maybe there are so many removal/block cards being played because there are incredibly strong cards which may need balance fixes. I see that some mechanics like "Weather" or "Spies" are great ideas but are less played because they are less effective in this meta and may need to be rebalanced too. I also think that the "Tactical Advantage" should be reworked. I don't think its 5 points are OP but they could be an insane buff in many cases depending on your hand/archetype. Too much advantage since having it is just a matter of luck. However, as I said, I find the game quite enjoyable and gratifying to play.

Please, I'd appreciate not to face me with comments such as "RIP this, RIP that", "this game is...", "you are a..." since I'm just posting my early opinion about the game and especially trying to understand how the game has changed and why these changes have made "everybody" unhappy with it.

Thanks.

 

[Luckless_Jack]

Thronebreacker was adjusted to the new Gwent, not the other way around. At least if i remember some statements correctly

Gameplay-wise it's difficult to guess whether TB was adapted to HC, or vice versa. Which redesign was the driving force for the changes? Only CDPR know what really happened.

Graphically though it is more clear cut. Animated 3D leaders and muddy battlefields suggest TB was driving the design there.

 

[4RM3D]

In my opinion, and haven't played more than for one month, these flaws are not so critical to make the game so bad and so "unplayable", or "disappointing" as many say.

Most of the negativity isn't because Homecoming is a bad game, but because Homecoming isn't Gwent and 2 years of beta have been "wasted" to get to this point. And that's just about the game itself. The development thereof and the (lack of) communication, as well as the way some things have been handled, are not quite like the community had hoped. The most recent incident being the economy change.

I could explain the differences, but that still doesn't give a clear picture. If you really want to know, I recommend watching old youtube videos from streamers in closed beta, open beta pre-Midwinter and open beta post-Midwinter.

 

[Ulubey0]

I'd also like to know which features have changed in the game between the beta and the HC versions but in most threads I only read hate

Ok ill step up, first you need to know that 95% of the card abilities were changed for Homecoming, along with all the major mechanics and aesthetics/music. That's why people say it's a completely different game, they aren't exaggerating. If you want to know the mechanics that were changed you can look at this post i made a few days ago.

You must've never actually played beta, dozens of mechanics were removed!

There's no more Blacklisting, Strengthen/Weaken, Boons, Swap, Armor, Reveal/Conceal, CA Spies, Weather Synergy, Truce, Ambush Bamboozle, Duel (only Seltkirk left!), and Crewman.

Because there are less tutors, tags matter way less. In fact, Skellige Clans are completely gone, also NR country decks like Temerians too.

There's almost no cards that let you choose from multiple options in HC, like old Ceallach and Silver mages.

On top of all the core mechanic changes (like Mulligans, Draw Count, Hand limit, Leaders, Rows, No Silver Cards) how can anyone even say this is the same game? Personally i think they should bring all these back, the game feels way too simple without all these mechanics and abilities that felt essential for strategies. I think they should bring back beloved abilities like Trio, Quen, and Demote while they are at it.

Those were just off the top of my head... there's a lot more like how the passing mechanic has been put on rails because of the hand limit and card draw count changes.

Also silver cards being removed means you can't balance card's targeting effects as well. In Beta there were around 40 cards whose abilities could affect Silver/Bronze or just Bronze because they would be to powerful to effect golds too. In Homecoming you can only choose between All cards or just bronze cards for effects, which is a way weaker balancing tool.

I think you see my point and hope you realize it's not just hate... there are legitimate concerns yo

 

[G3nome]

Also silver cards being removed means you can't balance card's targeting effects as well. In Beta there were around 40 cards whose abilities could affect Silver/Bronze or just Bronze because they would be to powerful to effect golds too. In Homecoming you can only choose between All cards or just bronze cards for effects, which is a way weaker balancing tool.

a clear example is royal decree, before you had to use one slot from the four gold slots you had so you can have a better chance to play your other 3 golden cards and was restricted only for golds now you can pull whatever you want with royal decree

 

[ToxicDecks.inc]

Same here, good bye and good luck.

 

[partci]

Thronebreacker was adjusted to the new Gwent, not the other way around. At least if i remember some statements correctly

I am sorry, buy you must be really, REALLY naive to think that.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

I've also been a long time player of Gwent and I feel like most of you. I've been waiting so long to play this and the first few hours were extremely disappointing. Yet, I kept playing because I was intrigued to learn all these new cards and their abilities.

Needless to say, some cards have horrible designs. Some are completely random. A lot of cards feel so much stronger than other. Some cards' abilities just don't make much sense in my opinion. The balancing is all over the place in this version of gwent. I say this version because at some point Gwent was so much fun.

I won't stop playing the game though. There are times when I truly enjoy the game. I love the Order mechanic. Most of them are cool because they allow you to do things you couldn't do before. Some units are designed pretty freaking well and I wish there was more of that. This version of Gwent needs to change a few things for it to be good again. They really need to go back to the drawing board on certain cards and make them actually playable.

Hopefully the game gets better or a lot of players will move on from it. Also, there's a bit of bugs and glitches.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

And your point is?... Are we not allowed to discuss the game and what happened to it since we no longer play? Are we offending you or any of the current (little) fanbase?

You have not offended me. You're of course allowed to say what you want. But this threat has been here for some time and most that needed to be said has been said. Here's a quick summary:
1. 2 rows instead of 3. bad decision
2. Mechanics dumbed down.
3. Lack of communication.
4. Archtypes gone.
5. Bugs.
6. Console players misstreated.
7. Someone complaining CDPR lied to our faces.
8. Someone complaining his/her money has been taken.
9. Game not fast enough.
10. Game doesn't look the way his/her royal highness wants.
11. It's not gwent, it's Thronebreaker multiplayer.
12. RNG

That all has been said. CDPR understood it. It's not anyone else's decision to listen or ignore but theirs. Stop repeating yourself it makes you look stupid.

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

I've only played Gwent for a month more or less and so I didn't know how the game was in it's previous versions (open and closed beta). For me, the game as far as I played, is quite enjoyable, beautiful and generous in F2P terms. However, I read lots of complaints about "old" players who reject and hate the Homecoming version (which is the final release version I guess) so I've decided to analyse they're points of view, respectful opinions, etc. I'd also like to know which features have changed in the game between the beta and the HC versions but in most threads I only read hate, "RIPs", streamers' and viewers' data, and people saying that they're leaving Gwent to play other games such as Magic or Pay$tifact (sorry I meant Artifact).

I've read complaints about the "great annoyance" of having to click the end turn button (I hope you got the sarcasm). I've read about the deletion of the third row which is, in my opinion, "not as bad" (the game still has it's tactical feature). I've also read about performance problems which are, in my opinion and experience, bullshit. My PC is "stone-age" and the game works perfectly (just some framerate drop when there are many premium cards on screen). And in these cases the framerate drops affect only the cards animations which is much better than most AAA games today (shitty console ports, bad optimisation products, etc) which are almost unplayable if you don't have a NASA quantum computer. Eventually I've read about many reworks in cards that, in opinion of those players, ruined completely the game. It seems that before HC there were also more interaction between cards. And so here is my point. I'm trying to understand how those "changes" and "reworks" would possibly ruined literally "such a incredible" game as it was before and is making so much players to leave the game. And if those changes have been so serious, why CRPR haven't pushed these update as beta before releasing it as a final version and waited for the feedback as they had been doing for the entire development and beta versions (according to most people CDPR has always been listening the community feedback).

In my opinion, and haven't played more than for one month, these flaws are not so critical to make the game so bad and so "unplayable", or "disappointing" as many say. Maybe some units wouldn't be able to be played in a specific row (in terms of military strategy a trebuchet in a melee row may be pointless) as it was in Witcher 3's Gwent as I remember. Maybe there are so many removal/block cards being played because there are incredibly strong cards which may need balance fixes. I see that some mechanics like "Weather" or "Spies" are great ideas but are less played because they are less effective in this meta and may need to be rebalanced too. I also think that the "Tactical Advantage" should be reworked. I don't think its 5 points are OP but they could be an insane buff in many cases depending on your hand/archetype. Too much advantage since having it is just a matter of luck. However, as I said, I find the game quite enjoyable and gratifying to play.

Please, I'd appreciate not to face me with comments such as "RIP this, RIP that", "this game is...", "you are a..." since I'm just posting my early opinion about the game and especially trying to understand how the game has changed and why these changes have made "everybody" unhappy with it.

Thanks.

You can't say you played for a month and then continue to say you think criticism is too harsh. Paraphrasing here, so no offense.

We've been at this for 2 years so we went through a lot of changes, some good some bad. I'll try and go through the major ones.

The biggest issue is that Gwent used to be more tactical. The first major change was the Gold Immunity update and it was the first one that showed CDPR is sruggling with Gwent. Gold cards used to be immune, meaning you can't target them or even scorch them. You had to lock or d bomb them to turn them into silver, before being able to target them. The update made golds targetable. Good choice, as Golds were used as finishers you can do very little against. Problem was, the cards themselves weren't changed to accomodate the removal immunity. For example, Ciri had her value unchanged, making her useless as her low point value was easily removable. Not an issue when she had immunity. So they removed gold immunuty but left golds unchanged, making a lot of them useless.

Then came the agility. Most cars used to be row locked. This played into the tactical aspect of gwent. When creating a deck, you had to think about which units you want. Do you want to play to their strengths and focus on one row, risking row effects or do you spread your units but get less power. It was a game of bluff. You tried drawing strong cards fro your enemy, before playing yours. You had to think ahead because you couldn't easily react to enemy attack, like rot tossers or weather. With agility, deck building doesn't require much thought. Enemy does something? No problem, just spam units on whatever row. No need to worry about retribution on a reckless play.

Speaking of weather, they made weather asymmetrical. Weather used to cover both yours and the enemy's row, forcing you to strategically place your units before using it. It was a risk-reward mechanic. Then they made it so that weather spawns only on the enemy side. No need to worry about your units, just spam it on the enemy side.

Then came Midwinter, the deathblow that lead to Homecoming in the first place. On top of all those things mentioned above, which were amimed at getting casuals to Gwent, we got an incredible amount of RNG. Basically competitive cards that "create any card in game and play it", leading to some incredibly RNG based wins.

Both streamers and players left so they announced Homecoming. The kicker was, we wouldn't be getting any updates for 6 months while they were working on it. Months went by with no info. Then we got "we're testing with 2 rows". Players expressed concern as they didn't want the game streamlined even more. Then we got "Gwent will now have 2 rows". 6 months after announcement we got this. A game that went from tactical to plopping cards down and using them to either damage or boost other cards.

To put it simply, Gwent was too streamlined to appeal to a wider audience, coated in PR speak about how 2 rows are done for the sake of bigger card art, as opposed to a mobile version of Gwent as most people suspect.

2 rows wouldn't be a problem if it was done well. But the only reason for 2 rows is because of a future mobile version, not because it makes the game better. That right there is the problem with rows, not "but Gwent always had 3 rows". If you can make a game better with 2, great. It's just that the game isn't better for it.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

And the loop continues.

 

[_Kili_]

And the loop continues.

And it will do so until there is change.

 

[Draconifors]

This thread is going downhill again.
If you have nothing but rude things to say, do not post. One post deleted, more will follow if necessary.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

I am sorry, buy you must be really, REALLY naive to think that.

Why naive? It makes much more sense for me. The money printer should be Gwent not Thronebreaker, because you only pay once for TB but double, trice ect for Gwent. So they slim down Gwent for a bigger audiance. because it would be strange if thronebreaker and Gwent had different versions of the game itself, they used the new concept of gwent for it.

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

Hi, 2 months player here...
So you're saying that long time ago gwent was more about thinkering than grind,grind,grind and grind? :O Is that even possible, haha I don't believe U

 

[_Kili_]

Why naive? It makes much more sense for me. The money printer should be Gwent not Thronebreaker, because you only pay once for TB but double, trice ect for Gwent. So they slim down Gwent for a bigger audiance. because it would be strange if thronebreaker and Gwent had different versions of the game itself, they used the new concept of gwent for it.

But why make a new concept at all? Gwent had a working base concept in beta, all that they would have needed to do was expand on that.
Like, take old beta Gwent and add in the Provision system. Remove the 3rd bronze copy. Remove silver cards. For best effect do this step by step and on a PTR, and then listen to feedback, keep the changes that were accepted, drop the removal of the 3rd row and other stuff that is bad.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

And it will do so until there is change.

That suggests you want to force it. Forcing someone do something they don't want is proved wrong in a number of occasions. Always had bad aftermath.

 

[_Kili_]

That suggests you want to force it. Forcing someone do something they don't want is proved wrong in a number of occasions. Always had bad aftermath.

Go ahead then, let Gwent die. See if I care.

 

[el_Bosco]

CDPR understood it.

In what way have they understood it? Where have they acknowledged it? By changing the game director? A real, clean, public acknowledgement and apologizing is exactly what we want and what we deserve and this last decision of changing the game economy pushes our interpretation of CDPR attitude towards us and HC to the exact opposite. They're not trying to make amends or repent in any way. For me, i interpreted it as "lets try to squeeze the last dollars of this fiasco and then ditch it".

Stop repeating yourself it makes you look stupid.

Now thats actually offensive. We keep seeing new ppl voicing their opinions on this topic. Yes they all touch on the same subjects. This hasnt been the most active topic in the forum for "stupid" reasons. @Draconifors i suggest you wind back this topic and check when (and whose posts) made it derailed in the last couple of weeks.

And it will do so until there is change.

There wont be a change back to the real Gwent nor substantial reimplementations of features we didnt wanted removed in the first place as that would have take another months of investment with little prospects of profit. Whats more likely from a commercial pov is that CDPR ditches this failed project with the lack of continue profit (TB selling less than expected and dwindling HC player base and income) and the proximity of CP2077.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

Go ahead then, let Gwent die. See if I care.

In what way have they understood it? Where have they acknowledged it? By changing the game director? A real, clean, public acknowledgement and apologizing is exactly what we want and what we deserve and this last decision of changing the game economy pushes our interpretation of CDPR attitude towards us and HC to the exact opposite. For me, i interpreted it as "lets try to squeeze the last dollars of this fiasco and then ditch it".



Now thats actually offensive.

They read it.
In terms of "we" wanted. I'm standing here and you over there. We're arguing. How can anyone interpret that to be a sensible, directional, one-dimensional opinion? Now put that in grand scheme. Which path to take. One of el_Bosco or Karls?? Or anyone else's in between. No clue, no clue..