More and more, I am getting the impression that Gwent developers are seizing too much creative control from the players. I hope my perceptions are wrong, but I wanted to share them in the hope that either I am proven wrong or can encourage change.
In a collectable card game like Gwent, it is perfectly reasonable (actually essential) that developers control the rules and the card design; it is equally reasonable that the players have creative freedom to choose the deck composition and how the cards are played. With the 9.1 patch and developer comments surrounding it, I increasingly feel that the design is being manipulated to limit player “creativity” to planned archetypes and choreographed plays. If that is truly the designer’s intent, I need to quit — the game will never be what I want. If I am overreacting or faulty in my perception, I appreciate being corrected.
I submit the following as evidence for my concern that developers are overextending creative control into areas better reserved for players.
1. In the developer’s video describing the 9.1 patch, the nerf to Blightmaker was justified by comments to the effect that Blightmaker/ Mage Assassin was becoming autoinclude when it was intended just to support hyperthin, so the provision nerf would be offset in hyperthin decks by a provision buff to neutral cards in that archetype. My reaction is that, while archetypes are fine, not all cards need (or should) be restricted to a particular archetype. In particular, Blightmaker has nothing directly linking it to hyperthin— it should be an all purpose card. Mage assassin could arguably be a “hyperthining” card, but it was not the card nerfed. The nerf did not “fix” an overpowered combo (it’s still overpowered), it “fixed” a perceived archetype.
2. The change of Guardian from Gold to Bronze serves only one purpose — preventing players from cleverly and creatively using it not being bronze to limit choices for cards like Roderick or as a nonspawning target for Foltest. These uses are what I consider inventive and hardly overpowered. Thus, the only reason I see for the change is that the developers didn’t like the way the game was being played.
3. Cards are becoming increasingly simplified with fewer creative and strategic possibilities. I will take two examples, but there are many others. Drummond berserker, when deemed too powerful for a five provision card was dropped from 6 strength to five strength. This resulted in the card doing one less ping of damage before converting converting to a bear abomination at berserk 3. It also meant the conversion occurred one turn (rather than 2 turns) after the berserker was played. The new card required no planning or strategy to keep it alive. Equally obvious, but far more strategic, nerfs would have been to either increase the provision cost by one (leaving initial strength alone) or to reduce both the initial strength to five AND the Berserk level to 2. The other card that comes to mind was the change to Fleder. The old power gave the Fleder vitality four and required it to destroy an allied unit. It had flexibility (removing spies, cow carcasses, or a desperation death wish trigger). The new card, arguably stronger, gives the fleder vitality equal in duration to bleeding inflicted on an enemy. But no longer is there any issue as to when to play the card, or which victim to choose. Oh, and did I mention that now the card is now only playable with a vampire deck.
4. Current Meta Decks have very few significant variants. You might argue that they have been highly optimized — I argue that any given archetype has very few viable alternative choices. People complain about netdecking, but I bet that if you gave expert players a defining archetype, each would independently craft essentially the same deck two times out of three. I am coming to believe this is intentional design. The meta lacks variety because variety has been designed out of it.
In a collectable card game like Gwent, it is perfectly reasonable (actually essential) that developers control the rules and the card design; it is equally reasonable that the players have creative freedom to choose the deck composition and how the cards are played. With the 9.1 patch and developer comments surrounding it, I increasingly feel that the design is being manipulated to limit player “creativity” to planned archetypes and choreographed plays. If that is truly the designer’s intent, I need to quit — the game will never be what I want. If I am overreacting or faulty in my perception, I appreciate being corrected.
I submit the following as evidence for my concern that developers are overextending creative control into areas better reserved for players.
1. In the developer’s video describing the 9.1 patch, the nerf to Blightmaker was justified by comments to the effect that Blightmaker/ Mage Assassin was becoming autoinclude when it was intended just to support hyperthin, so the provision nerf would be offset in hyperthin decks by a provision buff to neutral cards in that archetype. My reaction is that, while archetypes are fine, not all cards need (or should) be restricted to a particular archetype. In particular, Blightmaker has nothing directly linking it to hyperthin— it should be an all purpose card. Mage assassin could arguably be a “hyperthining” card, but it was not the card nerfed. The nerf did not “fix” an overpowered combo (it’s still overpowered), it “fixed” a perceived archetype.
2. The change of Guardian from Gold to Bronze serves only one purpose — preventing players from cleverly and creatively using it not being bronze to limit choices for cards like Roderick or as a nonspawning target for Foltest. These uses are what I consider inventive and hardly overpowered. Thus, the only reason I see for the change is that the developers didn’t like the way the game was being played.
3. Cards are becoming increasingly simplified with fewer creative and strategic possibilities. I will take two examples, but there are many others. Drummond berserker, when deemed too powerful for a five provision card was dropped from 6 strength to five strength. This resulted in the card doing one less ping of damage before converting converting to a bear abomination at berserk 3. It also meant the conversion occurred one turn (rather than 2 turns) after the berserker was played. The new card required no planning or strategy to keep it alive. Equally obvious, but far more strategic, nerfs would have been to either increase the provision cost by one (leaving initial strength alone) or to reduce both the initial strength to five AND the Berserk level to 2. The other card that comes to mind was the change to Fleder. The old power gave the Fleder vitality four and required it to destroy an allied unit. It had flexibility (removing spies, cow carcasses, or a desperation death wish trigger). The new card, arguably stronger, gives the fleder vitality equal in duration to bleeding inflicted on an enemy. But no longer is there any issue as to when to play the card, or which victim to choose. Oh, and did I mention that now the card is now only playable with a vampire deck.
4. Current Meta Decks have very few significant variants. You might argue that they have been highly optimized — I argue that any given archetype has very few viable alternative choices. People complain about netdecking, but I bet that if you gave expert players a defining archetype, each would independently craft essentially the same deck two times out of three. I am coming to believe this is intentional design. The meta lacks variety because variety has been designed out of it.
