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.
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.
Last edited: