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.
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.