DOES CDP RED transform GWENT into next copy of HS?!

[Wertandrew]

You guys are serious? Is this April the first yet or what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasn't the spy mechanic an RNG mechanic?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aren't all card games RNG based?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Spies. What they did, is have it for both players at the same time. I am pretty sure there are also spies still there, again you are referring to a version of Gwent that had 50 cards in it and you are also looking for specific cards examples that you haven't seen yet!

Also, why don't you reference your source of where you heard about spies being removed (except Dikjstra)? Was it an official statement? If so, I 'd like to know.

Next, the wound mechanic AND the draw mechanic open a lot more possibilities. Trust me, you don't want a meta with the old mechanics, try playing vanilla Gwent with others a lot of times and you 'll understand why. People will find the best deck and stick to it, then all decks will be the same. And it's not HS per se, as the wound is determined as an effect, not based on attack like Hearthstone and other card games. It's like saying "oh you draw cards, this is like Hearthstone".

Let's all have this conversation after the beta launches please, because ranting without knowing fully is not constructive at all. THIS can make devs change their awesome plans, so STOP IT.

Ok, rant over.

 

[jvc125]

Or maybe lets give Geralt an m-16, lets roach rides a tank and wound all gold cards but only when moon is full, that will makes it even more fun to play and if you play roach at full hour you will get 1000 points and if you collect 10000 you will win a toster. Is it not fun? and it will give this game much more needed depth and posibilities. Also lets not flip a coin lets flip whole board and cards that not fall from it will ramain! So much fun!

I wrote it to show you that you can put lots of stuff and change lot of things but in the end what will remain from the original gwent? Only a name?

 

[KnifeTime]

Ok, CDPR, let's do it.

Start the game with 15 cards. Draw 5 more after each round. Add HP/MP/STR to cards. Remove all the Special Cards, make them just spells. Give each Leader Card up to 3 abilities, and when your Leader is killed it means lose the Game.

There is no limits for experiments with mechanics. I suppose ...

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

yes the meta was in w3 gwent was bad, but with making spies higher and drawing less I think the meta would be fine, I think they are making changes to make changes at this point. The fans wanted gwent not a hs clone.

 

[jvc125]

They said that they will make gwent as stand alone game for the fans cause fans was asking for it and then... they left name and change everything else in the game. Where is logic in that? Was that really for the fans CDP?

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

You guys are serious? Is this April the first yet or what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasn't the spy mechanic an RNG mechanic?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aren't all card games RNG based?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, the main point and most people's point about this is that GWENT was always unique in the way that it has less RNG than most other card games and required more pre-planning and strategic thinking from the get go, rather than being based on a lucky last-minute draw in the 3rd (last) round.

On top of that comes the fact that, YES, Spies were RNG based, but even the developers admitted the Spy game was too much and too OP at times, hell that is (according to them) the very reason why they added the card draws and planned to nerf the Spies in the first place (although for me it does not make sense to add card draws (of the same number) for every factions in other to.... make Spies less relevant... ? Highly ineffective method if you ask me, but oh well, I don't know everything, maybe I'm wrong and I just don't get it).

 

[jvc125]

Ok, CDPR, let's do it.

Start the game with 15 cards. Draw 5 more after each round. Add HP/MP/STR to cards. Remove all the Special Cards, make them just spells. Give each Leader Card up to 3 abilities, and when your Leader is killed it means lose the Game.

There is no limits for experiments with mechanics. I suppose ...

Maybe lets start with all deck in hand and before 1round randomly exchange half of you hand with opponent, that will make game more fair. And lets not count points because losing its not fun. Everything for good FUN! Everyone is a winner!

 

[Keymaker7]

I will answer then.

Everything they did so far is in your opinion "very similar" to HS. So what do you guys want ? Do you want CDP to not adding anything to the game ? By doing this what will be the point of adding new cards to the game if new cards will be completly the same as the old ones except the graphic on a card. The more the mechanics in game the better, because it gives us more possibilities in a game it self and more possibilities for CDP to make more new interesting cards

Please read with understanding. I have never say all changes are bad in my opinion. There are a lot of new mechanics, cards, skills I very like (promotion, deadwish, copying cards etc). Am not against new mechanisc/skills/cards, but drawing new cards after round it is not only new mechanic, it is huge change in CORE rules of Gwent and it influences on many things.

And who said that even if some of the mechanics are similar to HS is a bad thing.

Some mechanics are bad because they change CORE rules of Gwent. There are not bad only because beeing similar to HS, no. But if there are too many similar mechanics as in HS and HS is one of the biggest and well know card game in present day I have one tinny apprehension:

That some day I will tell somebody that I play Gwent and this person answers me something like this: "Gwent, oh yes, I have heard, it is a (next) copy of HS"

I will compare Gwent to HS, because it is is the most popular card game, many new games try to copy HS, it's mechanics etc. They do not try to come up with something own, new.
And Gwent is something new, unique and I really wish to stay that way.

 

[crazymmogamer]

Please read with understanding. I have never say all changes are bad in my opinion. There are a lot of new mechanics, cards, skills I very like (promotion, deadwish, copying cards etc). Am not against new mechanisc/skills/cards, but drawing new cards after round it is not only new mechanic, it is huge change in CORE rules of Gwent and it influences on many things.

This was actually tied to your comment about new wounded mechanic... drawing cards its just another example... as well as the title of this topic... Please read with understanding Key so you will notice that i also said "You guys" so my respond was directed to bigger amount of peoples which were saying that some other new mechanics are like in HS and so on and so on. I just said that i'm gonna quote my self from the respond to your YT message.

Do you see that guys? This targeting, wounding and in the result destroing mechanics is very similar to HS right now :/ The only difference is that we have strenght instead of HP... Gwent was different, kind of unique and now what? I do not want to judge until beta comes out but this video makes me worried and a bit sad.

So whats wrong with new "wounded cards" mechanic ?

---------- Zaktualizowano 21:41 ----------

You want a point here is one. How can I discuss with you about HS and gwent similarities or discuss how gwent is becoming similar to HS when you havent even played HS? There is no point.

Same question, PLEASE explain me whats wrong with new "wounded cards" mechanic in *GWENT: The Witcher Card Game? How this will make *GWENT: The Witcher Card Game worse ?

*GWENT - Means Gwent not HS #no1caresaboutHShere.

---------- Zaktualizowano 21:53 ----------

That some day I will tell somebody that I play Gwent and this person answers me something like this: "Gwent, oh yes, I have heard, it is a (next) copy of HS"

And I would answer: Yes but way much funnier to play, with badass graphics, badass sound, badass animations. With amazing animations, badass single player campaigns, badass lore full of badass characters where you actually know who is who, badass UI, made by badass company. So yea its next copy of HS with everything made better. But the best is that it dont look like a shit made for kids, you should try and play it man. *dropping the mic*

That would be my respond to that person

 

[RubenVDB]

good post, really sums up some of my feelings!

 

[Hairgelvic]

Totaly agree!

 

[jvc125]

[QUOTE
Same question, PLEASE explain me whats wrong with new "wounded cards" mechanic in *GWENT: The Witcher Card Game? How this will make *GWENT: The Witcher Card Game worse ?
[/QUOTE]

its not just about wounded cards mechanic but they are changing EVERYTHING they left only a name of the previous game. Thats the problem.

And I would answer: Yes but way much funnier to play, with badass graphics, badass sound, badass animations. With amazing animations, badass single player campaigns, badass lore full of badass characters where you actually know who is who, badass UI, made by badass company. So yea its next copy of HS with everything made better. But the best is that it dont look like a shit made for kids, you should try and play it man. *dropping the mic*

Now I uderstand. You just want to play some game with badass sound, animations, characters etc. and I want to play GWENT. Thats the difference.

---------- Post merged on 26-09-2016 at 12:13 AM ----------

I saw @KingBlackToof s video with new cards and wounded cards mechanics and its a BS. Its not like HS its a HS reap off. They killed Gwent.
RIP GWENT

 

[Wertandrew]

First of all let's get some things straight:
Massive props to CDPR on involving the community on an Alpha build AND lifting the NDA for those who streamed it. Hands down they are the best.
However, this is what happens when you release Alpha versions to the public, you show something unfinished and they may judge it based on what they saw (also happens in conventions). It is good that people are passionate and care about the game, but don't underestimate the dev's intelligence, I am pretty sure they had a lot of discussions of this mechanic before implementing.


A card draw is THE most ancient mechanic in card games. I agree on the point that it adds RNG to the game, but it is something that creates new strategies too (in our case).
I agree with the point to add the face up/face down choose mechanic INSTEAD of the simple card draw, but I would still like the 3 extra cards for the reasons explained below:


Pros:

1) What if you need to make a combo and you need one last card that you haven't drawn? Let's say you had 10/25 to draw it, and then 3/15 while redrawing in mulligan, and now you have another 3/15 between rounds. It increases the chance of pulling the combo you made the deck for.

2) You win the first round and your hand is great. You then want to make sure you push your opponent (who needs the extra draw in the next round) so that he cannot win the round. That means you change your tactic and become more aggressive (all cards in). That promotes the increase of risk for the winning player and creates an equal chance if the losing player manages to win the round.

3) The more cards you draw, the less RNG the game becomes, because you reach a higher ratio of deck number/drawn cards, meaning you get to have most of your same cards in most matches. It's not Operator RNG where you get a completely random card, I think its good RNG and personally if you draw a 15 Geralt, that is because you made a deck with him, not because you are lucky, the decks are small in number so higher occurrence.

4) A new strategy with this system is "stalling" and "fleshing". In stalling, you basically drop random cards that you don't need in order to wait for the next card draw that might give you the card you need. Remember, there is a chance that there might be spies still in the game, and that will further decrease RNG when card drawing (fewer cards left). With "fleshing", you can do something like that card we saw at an earlier convention (cant remember name) which ditched cards from deck into graveyard? That could be a strategy so that you either rez the card from graveyard, or draw it from deck when the round ends.


Cons:

1) Your opponent gets a card in 2nd /3rd around that breaks your line of thought. For example, you force him to use all his scorches and you are certain there are no more in his deck. Then on round 3 you go all in and play your best troop and he draws another scorch. Boom, you might lose the match.

2) Your opponent gets a great mulligan with 3 golds and 2 silver, and draws 1 gold more in round 2. You have a normal (not great) hand you are seriously under-powered (especially if he plays good too). That is bad, I agree.

Verdict:

Even if the RNG is increased while drawing, other mechanics that involve deck drawing or deck card ditching actually reduce the RNG when drawing, while increase the amount of cards you can have in the game (similar to spies, but different mechanic). So again dont judge a book by its cover, I made some fictional examples here to show that it is not as RNG as it is perceived.

Lastly, whatever we say in this thread, whatever good or bad, I personally feel that the clever people at CDPR had already discussed these things internally and came up with great reasons before doing this. So I have faith in them, and again, let's make this discussion again in beta and then you can tell me a thousand "I told you so" if you like.

 

[crazymmogamer]

I saw @KingBlackToof s video with new cards and wounded cards mechanics and its a BS. Its not like HS its a HS reap off. They killed Gwent.
RIP GWENT

Wow thats a great explanation ! For all that time i was totaly mistaken.... Not. You just avoided my question. Bullshit, HS reao off, They killed Gwent. Thats your explanation of why "wounded mechanic" is a bad thing for Gwent.

its not just about wounded cards mechanic but they are changing EVERYTHING they left only a name of the previous game. Thats the problem.

Thats what i ment in my previous post @Keymaker7

 

[Tarathelion]

Pros:

1) What if you need to make a combo and you need one last card that you haven't drawn? Let's say you had 10/25 to draw it, and then 3/15 while redrawing in mulligan, and now you have another 3/15 between rounds. It increases the chance of pulling the combo you made the deck for.

2) You win the first round and your hand is great. You then want to make sure you push your opponent (who needs the extra draw in the next round) so that he cannot win the round. That means you change your tactic and become more aggressive (all cards in). That promotes the increase of risk for the winning player and creates an equal chance if the losing player manages to win the round.

3) The more cards you draw, the less RNG the game becomes, because you reach a higher ratio of deck number/drawn cards, meaning you get to have most of your same cards in most matches. It's not Operator RNG where you get a completely random card, I think its good RNG and personally if you draw a 15 Geralt, that is because you made a deck with him, not because you are lucky, the decks are small in number so higher occurrence.

4) A new strategy with this system is "stalling" and "fleshing". In stalling, you basically drop random cards that you don't need in order to wait for the next card draw that might give you the card you need. Remember, there is a chance that there might be spies still in the game, and that will further decrease RNG when card drawing (fewer cards left). With "fleshing", you can do something like that card we saw at an earlier convention (cant remember name) which ditched cards from deck into graveyard? That could be a strategy so that you either rez the card from graveyard, or draw it from deck when the round ends.

Ad 1) and 4)
I have combined those as they touch on the same thing

That is not the positive at all. It encourages you to employ stalling mechanic in the first round because you know that there is a relatively high chance of drawing a card that support your combo, however it still isn't high enough to be sure about it. The problem is you will end up playing cards that are not part any combos. That limits your options. Its a bad example of RNG.

Ad 2)
The problem with that strategy is that, in third round you both receive additional card. If only your opponent would receive it then yea, it could be a interesting tactic, -finish it in second round so he will not get an extra card. With both of you receiving cards it makes not difference. Unless your goal is to avoid a game being decided by a lucky draw in third round but then it better ti remove this poor mechanic. It seems a strange justification for implementing a change. You better finish it in second round because third round is often a coin toss.


Ad 3)
If the problem with the game is to much RNG and you want to reduce the chances of getting a bad hand then there is so many better ideas how to do it, ones that don't screw up tactical part of the game. Simple examples:
- draw more than 10 cards
- allow players to replace 2 cards with a cards of their choice
- face up, face down choice when replacing cards
- draw cards they you will receive in second and third round at the beginning of the game so you can see what coming in next round
All of these simple ideas decrease RNG while at the same time they are not affecting the strategy part of it

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

@Wertandrew

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

I agree on the point that alphas are often judged harshly and we make some assumptions here and there. But as experienced Gwent players and fans of the game I think we are in the right to make SOME assumptions.

I think the importance here lies in the wording of our posts, which is why I never really wrote something like "CDPR your are ruining the game" or "this is gonna be bad" or "this isn't Gwent anymore!!". I'm trying to stay objective and to understand that there are reasons why they included those new mechanics and made those changes.

Still, while I agree on some of the pros you mentioned, I think especially in case of the last (3rd) round 1 card draw the cons to overshadow the pros. I also do not mind the card draw in the second round and I would very much like to keep it, but I want that last round draw to be removed. That being said, I also do not understand the logic of CDPR stating that the card draw was implemented as response to the problems they had with the overpowered Spy play. It makes no sense, it goes in the opposite direction of fixing this or balancing it out, since it is a change that was made equally on all factions and symmetrically added to each players turn, making it effectively have NO effect on the balance of the card number play directly, but only have an effect on the RNG element of the game. So I don't get that train of thought. Maybe I'm too stupid or blind to understand, but that is my point ATM.

 

[Rafal_Jaki]

Hey All,

Many thanks for expressing your concerns about the game - we really appreciate the feedback To address the issues at hand:

- Nothing is final we try new things and adapt we want to make Gwent great. The beta has not even started yet so please gives us your trust , we do what is best for the game.

- Spies in the W3 were ok because it was not meant to be played agains other ppl. There are two major benefits to Spies:
1. You get to draw X cards
2. You get to PASS the turn to the opponent. I have not seen any one discuss this but believe me this is more important than drawing cards - even if you give an X amount of points to the opponent it does not matter that much because the card advantage you get for making the opponent play 2 cards is huge. We have a best of 3 so it is even worse.
Having card draw mechanics in our testing made the game not fun for a longer time. Because if my deck had card draw and your deck did not you will lose regardless of the tactics you had. Gwent is a numbers game at the end, and making the opponent not only lose cards but also get cards for yourself was to much.
That also meant that to be able to play on a competitive level ALL drawing cards were auto-includes and again that is not fun in our opinion because that would mean there is very little variety in decks played.
- Wounding currently works in a way that if a unit reaches zero it is removed from the board.

There is room to make big and small changes to the game in closed BETA - we cannot do Gwent as it was in W3 because it would not work in a stand alone format in which PVP is one of the big pillars of the game.

 

[Tarathelion]

Nobody want the game to be exactly like in W3, everybody seems to understand that spy mechanic has to be changed. However, they way you have approached card draws have led to completely luck based outcomes of games. You don't have to believe me, just look at the videos posted here.

 

[Ecceptor]

1. I think most of us think that the new spies is really balance (choose 1 from 2)
2. You can counter spies easily with Resilient and Deathwish ability.

 

[Keymaker7]

Thank you for answer!

There is room to make big and small changes to the game in closed BETA - we cannot do Gwent as it was in W3 because it would not work in a stand alone format in which PVP is one of the big pillars of the game.

I completely understand that spies were to OP, maybe according to CDP RED inside tests still are and they need to be changed. I heve no problem with that. I can even accept this wounding mechanics, because it is not bad itself (after all, even if it is not logical to send unit to graveyard with strength = 0 because strength =/= HP).

But what is in my opinion wrong is drawing cards after each round. I understand that there are many people here who do not know how to/do not want to manage limited resources and they want to have more cards in hand. It is fine with me. So let them (us) have more cards at the beginning (for example 13) instead of drawing cards after each round to get finally this 13 cards. Very very please, no drawing cards automatically after rounds

I am sure that you and others people form CDP RED read forum so you realize why many of us think that drawing after rounds is wrong solution and I hope you will take into consideration our concerns.

Again, I appreciate for your post.