Very informative, thank you for the feedback, have a great day.
- Status
Very informative, thank you for the feedback, have a great day.
Not sure if they realized anything. They are just putting out fires (including sigil nerf which made the card useless). There's obviously no plan or anything.
And they still fail to communicate with the players, even on these forums.
I dont agree. I have seen plenty information from CDPR here, on forum and also on their official Discord, ruled by our Empress Alicja. [Nope.]Even on Twitter they are giving signs that they are aware of things which ppl say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually there are. The achievement and contracts about playing three copies of a card in one Arena match. It feels more like a mockery than a tribute though.
Seems like a matter of opinions to me and how you like to play, because the gameplay is essentially different now.
Maybe, the thing I dislike the most are the new orders cards. One thing that I never enjoyed about hearthstone was that you had too many resources and aggro decks could basically slam creatures until they won. For a change, Gwent relied completely on synergy between cards and a well constructed deck where each card drop counted and a misplay could be fatal. Now you find the same kind of infinite value cards that hearthstone has and that don't need anyone to be useful, they are mostly artifacts but it could be any type of order card really. Even if they nerf them this will be a recurring problem every time one card escapes their balance radar.
I liked also the looks of old Gwent more even if it doesn't affect gameplay. This 3D battlefield makes it look generic. A ton of card games out there that are not that popular tried to go with this "3D but dark" look Gwent wants to have now. Maybe they are not that polished as Gwent but here's a few:
- Inifinity wars
- Spellweaver
- Shadow era
And finally, understand why some people didn't like the deck thinning and consistency Gwent had before, but I also think that they probably didn't try out new things or didn't even try to make their own decks. It felt great when I managed to reach rank 20 with a deck of my own, one that I knew perfectly and that I could run like a finely tuned machine, making it better little by little. Now even a well made deck is far from being as consistent or synergistic as the ones I played before.
HC is not that bad, but to me it seems that we'll need a couple of years again to have something that remotely resembles a polished/balanced gameplay. A ton of iterations are probably coming to adjust all the things they made up and I don't feel like going through a beta game once again.
Would you prefer the simple look of the Beta Gwent? Unless you are really into card games, the simple generic look wont appeal to most people. I have friends who got into Hearthstone because it looked vibrant and interesting to look at.
Post automatically merged:
I keep seeing people say this, yet I don`t understand what exactly they want?
Further clarification on the approach and reasoning behind changes.
For example.... If players complain about X, Y and Z. CDPR has a tendency to say, "We heard you, we're going to change stuff because people are complaining about it.". Instead it could be, "We heard you, we're considering changing this and this, in this way, to solve these problems you're complaining about.". The former statement doesn't have much to go on. It's effectively empty text. The latter statement offers specifics and support. Incidentally, players can respond with feedback before it happens. There can be a back and forth. The secrecy is perplexing.
A good example of the latter is the recent update. They went into detail on the existing mulligan system, player complaints directed at it, what they intended to change about it and why they intended to do it. It's called communication. CDPR communicated their intent and the reasoning for it. There is still room for improvement but it's a far cry better compared to, "Two rows plays better." or, "Gwent is returning to it's roots.". The second one was worse because, well, it isn't what happened. Both require taking their word for it. Unfortunately, the second one ensured that ship sailed to Skellige.
Well, the stuff Beta players complain about is pretty much "we want the old Gwent back, I don`t like this version of the Gwent", or "I have too much scrap and I don`t know what to do with it". I don`t think the game will go back to the Beta Gwent, so no amount of communication will fix this. Again I have to mention Hearthstone. They never directly answer community`s requests and complaints. There will always be a chance of the "vocal minority" so they cannot just look at the forums for any change in the game. I never liked seeing devs only looking to reddit and forums for feedback instead of relying on their own statistics and intuition. Regardless, with the weird structure we have going on where Beta players think they have an elite status looking at the direct feedback wont even work.
Those comments were not exclusive to HC though. There were many instances in beta where the communication left a lot to be desired. Likewise, the information given wasn't presented with a lot of time to offer feedback.
I'd agree many of the complaints are presented poorly. Communication is a two way street.
Is this really a mystery? When there is a big issue like "Premium cards aren't working for example.....". The developers tell us why it happened and what they are doing to sovle the problem. Right now this is not happening.
The performance issues is something I don't really get, and I fully understand console players. One thing is the old speech of "bring back three rows", "bring back gold/silver/3 bronzes", "bring back old board", "remove 3D leaders", which we are hopefully leaving behind, and the other thing is to have a buggy game, which a serious company such as CDPR should not have. Same goes with Thronebraker, it goes beyond my understanding how the game got released with so many issues on its back.
Before all of these problems my view of CDPR games was the same as everyone elses. That CDPR is a game studio that prides themselves on quality. They deliver a quality product to their fans. They probably still will with their triple A games but my view of them has changed. Where is the quality in Gwent? The animations are top notch but other than that the game is just struggling. It's had big issues with balancing and what not for a long time now. I don't understand how they got to this point.
Yup, I agree.
But leaving balance behind, the first thing to have is a stable game. Ofc, you can have a minor bug here and there, but for console players it's literally unplayable. On PC we don't have those major bugs, but still I don't even know who I play against, since in most of my games, I don't see the opponents name, or the issues with the deck viewer, for example.
Seriously? There's a lot of very specific feedback dozens of players provided.
Just a few examples:
- Why artifacts suck and how to fix them (different suggestions from giving them armor to equipping/placing them next to units)
- Why new ranked mode favors grind over skill and how to fix it (return back MMR for all ranked modes or at least reduce the number of stars/ranks)
- Specific changes to specific cards (not just +/-1 fixes, but reworks of game mechanics)
- Make the number of golds cards equal for all players in the arena
- Streamers like FreddyBabes, KBT and McBeard provided their own feedback on fixing various issues
There's much more.
Post automatically merged:
Come on, CDPR always had issues with balancing. The story in all 3 Witcher games was great, as well as visuals and voice acting (especially in Polish). But the gameplay... don't you remember backtracking and tons of respawning enemies in the first Witcher? And its horrible click-click-click combat? Don't you remember how pretty much everything one/two-shot Geralt in The Witcher 2 so quen + upgrades was a must have? And, on the contrary, The Witcher 3 was a walk in the park even on the highest difficulty. And Thronebreaker is even more so (despite them increasing the difficulty in the December patch).
And again, The Witcher 1/2 were practically unplayable on release. Only in about 1-1.5 years, in director's cut, the majority of game breaking bugs were ironed out.
Things turned out much better with The Witcher 3, but it still had critical issues. And, finally, Thronebreaker, despite it's simple design, was full of bugs on release.
[Nope.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I preferred how it looked the old Gwent although I don't think it's a popular opinion. I have to say that I like more how Hearthstone looks, regardless of their monetisation model their UI and animations are fantastic: clear, clean and simple, something Gwent has been lacking all this time (probably this is where they should improve to capture new players).
I liked Old gwent look and I like the hearthsone look because they didn't pretend to be something they are not. They looked like what they are, board games with cards. Gwent right now looks like stamps fighting on an over-detailed battlefield.
Same here. I never needed an graphic overhaul, it was just fine. A simple design, not to fancy, but still enjoyable. Now it is to much for me.
It's a problem when the value gained is based on the result of the RNG. Points should not come on a silver platter. They should be earned by making the proper decision or card play. You should not gain insane value because the reveal just happened to find the right card. Nor should you get screwed because it didn't. The entire concept behind the mechanic should not exist. It's as far away from "skill based CCG" as you can get. The range on high variance cards should be tied to how and when they are played.
I'd prefer it if banishing cards from the opponent deck didn't exist at all. Banishing or stealing from the GY is arguably alright. Banishing or stealing from the board is definitely alright. Banishing a high value card because you got lucky or a low value card because you didn't is not alright.
You litterally mentioned every card I haven't.
Yes, there is still too many RNG for my liking but targetting Recruit or Arbalest is just irrelevant, those cards aren't the problem at all.
So OP that I've never lost to this card...ever and I'm not even that good of a player.
Like, come on guys, you can claim it to be annoying but OP is really out of context.
Well, they're bad cards now so, you can lose to them but it means either you made a mistake or the match up is tough either way.
RNG is like anything else, it's fine as long as it's fair, which is the usual issue with it because it's very difficult to make a card based on RNG that's fair (it's not really compatible). Yet, CDPR managed to make the one I mentioned above balanced and fair. You can still lose to them because everyone can lose to a bad card but they're bad cards now, they're not the annoying 4 provision card that increases its value by a quart on a good roll.
Are we still talking about the cards I mentioned? Like, gaining 1 point on a good roll is "insane value"?
So, banishing from a GY or board is okay but from the deck, this is where you cross the line? Odd, very odd.
And again, you don't get a high value card banished on a good roll, your high value card is saved on a low one. It's completely different.
If your opponent were to choose he/she would go for the high value card by default, the RNG aspect of VW is a nerf.
- Status