Discussion on Gwent: Homecoming changes and ideas (Part one - Orders)

[MirageImage]

P.S. I don't have 10 posts yet so I can't create a thread elsewhere. Can a moderator help me move this thread to the appropriate "suggestions" forum? Thanks

Hi all,

So I have been playing Gwent since the very start of open beta, experienced every patch since, tried every archetype and you get the point. I played this game for so long and love it so much. But with homecoming many changes were made and there was some negative reception to what was supposedly a change in Gwent's identity that made it lose its appeal to certain people. I love this card game so much so I want to stick by this game and provide some analysis to a few important changes and how the game can possibly be improved moving forward.

This is my personal observations and opinions so any and all discussions are welcomed. I have a lot of things to discuss so for the benefit of more focused discussions and less overwhelming of readers, I will break down separate points into multiple threads.

This thread will talk about "Orders".

There was a lot of discussions over artifacts and how it needs to be nerfed ever since the launch of homecoming, most prominently the card Sihil receiving much attention. But actually, artifacts are just a manifestation of an underlying change - the introduction of "orders". Gwent never had anything like this in the past.

"Orders" enabled a few things, namely the snowballing of certain card effects and value over time at the player's discretion. Let me explain.

Back then Gwent was more of a game where each player had "one move" per turn. A tit-for-tat kind of game. One card each turn, which specifically interacted with whatever was already on the board, in one's hand or the deck in a predetermined way. Synergies were based off this concept, where a card like the old Siege support had a specific interaction with subsequent machines placed on the board (boost machines by 1 and 1 armor), or where the old reaver hunters had a specific interaction with each subsequent copy of the card played (with the bond effect). Whatever effect it was, it happened THAT turn, with exception of cards with fixed timers like Ocvist or Villentretenmerth. Now, orders allow you to "store" your value for later play, resulting in a snowball effect.

The reason why Foltest's pride became a meme deck is precisely because of this. You can give it a charge and then wait...and wait...and wait...until the last turn where you unleash your 10+ charges. Previously, the card with a similar effect (ballista) had its effect trigger the moment you played it. This difference allows for the "storage" of value in order to target more valuable cards in later turns, such as finishers (e.g. Vattier or Master of Disguise) rather than what is currently on the board when the card is played. It shifts the dynamic from a tit-for-tat game which Gwent originally was to something more passive in nature.

An older form of a card with an order-like effect is probably the Impera Enforcers, but even then you could only damage whatever cards were currently on the board that particular turn. Now, for example, if I have Saesenthessis: Blaze on the board with 5 charges, I can wait until an engine card or another "orders" card appears before spending my charges to kill it. Foltest Pride is an extreme example which value rapidly increase over time. Another extreme example is Isbel's order after the opponent has passed.

This also led to the start of the artifact discussions, because now people can play thunderbolt potions and assuming the opponent has no artifact removal, have 6 points "stored" in value per card with no way of interacting with it until the points are conferred on a unit. The same goes for other artifacts which can trigger every turn to give good value over time as needed. They have removal value which can carry over into subsequent turns which are dictated by the player (they can choose the target). Even old cards which have removal value in subsequent turns have a specific action e.g. Yennefer: Conjurer only damaged the highest unit(s) and that one patch when Harald damaged the lowest unit by 1 every turn. This is why Sihil is so problematic now. You not only have continuous removal value, you get to choose your targets.

This change is not inherently bad mechanics wise per se, because you can argue it comes with the risk of having your card destroyed before having spent its charges. But it does take away the unique "one move" per turn concept that Gwent had which understandably makes it less appealing to some old players. It also makes it harder to predict your opponent's moves in a bid to outplay them because you don't know when and how they will spend their charges, unlike in the past when you know card effects take place immediately so you can play around combos. I mean now players can use their charges (e.g. Eithne) to line up units for a scorch in a single turn whereas previously you had one turn to "react".


Now for suggestions, I have a few to discourage a passive playstyle and a possible solution to the artifact problem.
1. Give charges a duration. Give charges a set number of turns for players to use it by, after which they will be forced to use the charge (forfeiting the charge altogether would be too harsh).
2. Give certain cards a reasonable charge limit to prevent snowballing, e.g. Ivo, Kiyan, Impera Enforcers, Vysogota. Yes, I am well aware that Northern Realms have more orders cards and so it seems a little unfair but I did say reasonable limit (like Bloody Baron should not be able to double a charge count to 20, that sort of thing).
3. Artifacts. A little "deploy" effect can be added to artifacts to make them less overpowered and add more flavour to the card mechanics in the form of "refresh the card's charge when ever you play a unit adjacent to it". It would certainly prevent artifact-only boards, now that you need to play units to re-enable their effects.


I'm not vehemently criticising "orders", just stating what I observed to have led to an overall change in the concept of the game. I'm not unreasonable and know that the developers have worked hard to add in this mechanic to help add a layer of depth to the game, I really appreciate their work. I'm not calling for the removal of "orders" but maybe some modifications to bring back the old "deploy" feel of the game. If any of you agree or disagree, please feel free to reply me, I'm all for helping providing constructive feedback.

 

[4RM3D]

P.S. I don't have 10 posts yet so I can't create a thread elsewhere. Can a moderator help me move this thread to the appropriate "suggestions" forum?

Done.

 

[4RM3D]

Now for suggestions, I have a few to discourage a passive playstyle and a possible solution to the artifact problem.

After actually reading the post, it's time for some remarks. The first and second suggestion would require adding another counter to the card. This would make the game unnecessarily complex, and only to limit the snowballing. Instead, I rather see a solution that becomes a result of the meta, rather than a forced way to limit the potential of the card.

To give an example of the above, old Sabbath was a hated card because it was binary, you either had an answer (usually Mardroeme) and you win the match or you don't and lose the game. Foltest's Pride works the same way, that is, if you do not have an answer you'll probably lose the game. However, there is an important difference, namely there are more ways to counter FP directly or indirectly; a lot more ways.

I did make a thread a while ago about the snowball effect breaking the meta. That was my prediction, at least, but the actual impact seems far less overwhelming, interestingly enough. In theory, the accumulation of the snowball orders should be a problem, but the meta says otherwise.

Finally about the artifacts, there is a general consensus they need to be changed. Your suggestion has been proposed a few times already, as well as giving artifacts durability, allowing them to be damaged, or some form of equip, which I've suggested.

 

[MirageImage]

After actually reading the post, it's time for some remarks. The first and second suggestion would require adding another counter to the card. This would make the game unnecessarily complex, and only to limit the snowballing. Instead, I rather see a solution that becomes a result of the meta, rather than a forced way to limit the potential of the card.

Interesting point. I agree having a solution that becomes a result of the meta would probably be preferable and that my solutions make the game more complex, but they are just possible suggestions. I guess you're referring to having more cards like Falibor or Kaedweni Calvary. Fair enough, I guess there aren't many of such cards in other factions aside from Northern realms.

As for the snowballing, the issue is not just about snowballing, it is that now players can choose when to trigger the effect of cards after having played them, which was absent in the previous version of gwent which had either deploy effects, a timer or specific conditions. It makes it harder to play around the effects because you don't know when and how your opponent will trigger them, as compared to let's say the previous version where a vran with a timer of 2 you know when they are going to consume a nekker to its right. Now my Kayran can consume cards as I play them from my hand each turn long after I played the Kayran. It takes away that one turn of setting up cards on the board which can interact with the card, which your opponent can use to counter it (like old Arachas queen which had that ability, only its ability was immediate).

Now people can Eithne ping followed by scorch, wait until the highest unit is played before locking it and triggering Vattier's ability, play Sabrina then damage her with a Revenant in a single turn. Rather than let's say, give you a turn to boost your units to counter scorch when you see their powers lined up, unlock your unit before it is seized by Vattier, lock Sabrina. It's a change I honestly don't see a solution to as of now.

I'm not upset about Foltest pride, it was just used as an extreme example. I found many ways to counter it. I'm just saying how this introduction of orders has changed the "one move" concept of Gwent which was present from the very beginning. Not that it's bad, but it's different and not everyone will like that difference.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] it is that now players can choose when to trigger the effect of cards after having played them [...] It makes it harder to play around the effects because you don't know when and how your opponent will trigger them [...] Now people can Eithne ping followed by scorch [...]

There are two aspects to what's you're saying. First of all, cards can be played with a delayed trigger (orders), allowing players to activate the order at the best possible time (or, at least, take the risk of it being countered in the meantime). This leads to the second point, that these orders can combined on the same turn, sometimes also using the leader, for devastating effects.

The idea behind all this (I suppose) was to give the game a tactical depth where you have to more carefully play cards and combine certain orders, while at the meantime trying to prevent the opponent from countering your game plan. In theory, this idea was interesting, in practise, it turned out to be somewhat problematic. This is mostly due to the artifact heavy decks that cannot be countered unless running heavy artifact removal. Another strong deck was the ST Scorch deck that could easily align units. Both decks have been nerfed, justly so, but the method used was disappointing, with the solution only being mostly provision tweaks.

Anyhow, I am not going to propose a solution because I really don't know how to solve this issue. There is an eternal conflict between removal decks being to strong and engine decks running around rampart. Orders were suppose to restore the balance, but the meta turned out differently.

 

[Velvett]

Hmm...
Maybe sequence of play should work like:
Start turn, activate card with order ability / leader ability, play card -> end turn.

That solution could keep design of orders ability and bring back a "time to react". Concurrently dynamic of game will be repaired.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

The concept of storing value for later isn't new. Hand-buff, movement to set up row targeted cards, line ups for big removals, etc. has been around a while. The difference with orders is it adds another option, or dimension, to it.

The ability to deal with or adjust around it isn't absent either. It's just far more involved. Instead of reacting to a card hitting the board and deciding how to handle it many of these order cards or snowball concepts must be recognized well ahead of time. It's the only way to properly deal with them or recognize when you cannot do so. In a sense it increases the skill gap so it's an improvement IMO.

#1 and #2 of your suggestions both sound reasonable for two reasons. One, it would give more variety to these type of mechanics. Many order cards are a bit too simplistic/binary. Two, it provides another way to balance them. Obviously, both suggestions are context specific. A charge limit or duration on certain cards, or new ones added in the future, would make using them a bit more involved and/or gate their value from becoming too powerful.

It's probably better to view artifacts as a separate, independent issue. Primarily because they are only vulnerable to one type of card. So, while I agree with #3, it's really a topic in itself. I'd add removal options should be more flexible. Designed more like Ida instead of Bomb Heaver. Barring that, go with one of the durability/armor concepts suggested by other players.

 

[MirageImage]

There are two aspects to what's you're saying. First of all, cards can be played with a delayed trigger (orders), allowing players to activate the order at the best possible time (or, at least, take the risk of it being countered in the meantime). This leads to the second point, that these orders can combined on the same turn, sometimes also using the leader, for devastating effects.

The idea behind all this (I suppose) was to give the game a tactical depth where you have to more carefully play cards and combine certain orders, while at the meantime trying to prevent the opponent from countering your game plan. In theory, this idea was interesting, in practise, it turned out to be somewhat problematic. This is mostly due to the artifact heavy decks that cannot be countered unless running heavy artifact removal. Another strong deck was the ST Scorch deck that could easily align units. Both decks have been nerfed, justly so, but the method used was disappointing, with the solution only being mostly provision tweaks.

Yes, you understood my point. Thanks for summarizing it to make it more comprehensible for future viewers.

The purpose of my post is not to provide a solution but to bring up this underlying change and how it has affected the state of the game. This is so people can recognize this change and create room for future discussion to improve this new mechanic. Velvett’s suggestion of sequential play is a very good start for example.

The concept of storing value for later isn't new. Hand-buff, movement to set up row targeted cards, line ups for big removals, etc. has been around a while. The difference with orders is it adds another option, or dimension, to it.

I guess I phrased it kind of poorly. It’s not really a storing of value exactly but as in storing of “deploy effects” which in previous version only interacted with cards already on the board (or in one’s hand) at that current board state. Not only that, but you get to choose your target specifically, as compared to pre-determined conditions previously.

E.g. Very old patch in closed beta where you can give cards immune. The card has to be on the board before you can give it immune, giving the opponent one turn to destroy the engine cards you want to make immune. Now, if avallach is not locked or destroyed, the next card I play like cahir can be granted immunity immediately without a turn for the opponent for removal or lock. If I want to lock Cahir, I have to effectively use 2 locks (one for avallach and one for cahir). I can no longer target Cahir first. This is an example of this new mechanic.

Using current consume as an example. If my Kayran is on the board I can eat harpy eggs as I play them from my hand, rather than establishing the harpy eggs on the board first for possible locks. I can do this 3 times for other deathwish units. Previously with old Arachas Queen, since I had to develop the deathwish units on the board first, the units themselves are prone to damage, locks, old artefact compression, row alignment or other spells and effects. E.g. Mandrake on Nekkers. It gives you an additional option of dealing with the cards to be interacted with as well as the card to be played that will interact with them (i.e. In the past I can target not only the unit consuming them but also the units to be consumed since they must be established on the board rather than now where there is a greater focus on removing the unit consuming them). There is an overall loss in interactivity.

Handbuffs and row movement are still present which I still very much enjoy because you can play around them. You can certainly play around row movement and power alignment for scorch if you have one turn to react. Handbuff is special because it triggers in a definite way. You know a unit is definitely getting buffed every turn in their hand, so you can deduce the amount of power they are holding on to and decide to keep big removals like vanilla Geralt, by counting the number of unbuffed units they play from their hand and the number of turns taken. The thing about orders is players can activate it at their discretion or not at all, so it's harder to play around.