Does Gwent need more complexity?

+

Does Gwent need more strategic depth?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 69.2%
  • No

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Yes, but not with more complex card effects

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Total voters
    39
There is something that has been on my mind lately about Gwent: The tactical depth is rather shallow.
The reason for this is quite simple: the design of the game in itself is very simple, both players alternatingly play a card, who has more points than the other wins a round, who wins 2 rounds wins the game. The decisions to remove a row and to lock a deck to 25 cards make the game even simpler.
Compare that to other games like MtG or Hearthstone, where there is a mana system for playing cards, and a hp system for deciding the game. This adds way more layers one can operate on, that can't exist in Gwent.

Now, here is my question: Is that simplicity bad for Gwent?
A lot of people talk about how boring the game is, and I think a lot of that comes down to the simplistic gamedesign. I would enjoy Gwent way more when there would be more tactics involved, the question is, how to make this possible?

I think the only way to do so, in my opinion, is doing something, that the devs always try to do the exact opposite of: making the cards themselves more complex.
With that I don't mean to just add more conditions to cards (well maybe somtimes more conditions are good), what I mean is, adding more different keywords.
Examples for existing keywords are Immune or Spying. How about adding tags that for example give immunity to spells? Give resistance to weather? Maybe even some negative keywords, like doomed kind of is, for example weakness to weather (added damage from it).

And here is another question: If you don't think cards (card effects) should become more complex, what would you propose cards for future expansions should look like? There is only so many simple effects that can be used, and the strict game design of Gwent limits that even more.

I'm really interested what people think^^
 
What this game needs is an alternative win con. The classic mill deck was such a thing. The way Gwent works doesn't allow for much flexibility, partly because of the lack of health.

My suggestion would be the introduction of Quest cards. It's something I need to think on some more to give a proper example (and balancing). The idea is that when you play a Quest card, you have to fulfill a certain condition thereafter, like kill x amount of units or have a unit of x strength or greater on the board. The quest card will remain active for the rest of the game. Once you complete the quest, you'll win the game.

With the Quest system there are many things possible and many variations. Mine was but one example.
 
IMO, the game doesn't need to be more complicated, and it certainly doesn't need to be more like MTG. MTG, Hearthstone...I hate those games, they are mostly luck-based (cue the rage) for the simple fact that playing cards requires a resource, so even the best strategies fall on their face if the draw screws you over.

What I love about Gwent, aside from being Witcher-themed, is that it is definitely more reliant on skill because it is all about math.

The problem, as it seems to me, is that skill is largely found in the first round. "He who wins the first round/plays the last card wins the game" is true in almost every game I've played even back in the beta. The way the math works out, if you go hard and win the first round, and pass the second so that your opponent has to burn a card to win, you will almost always get to play the last card. So numbers are on your side, and you can just hang on to something like a super-high card, or something that pulls more cards from your deck (lambert, eskel, ves) and that's it.

So what the game needs in my opinion is cards that shake things up more, because 9/10 if you set yourself up to have last turn of the game in round one, it's basically just going through the motions from there.
 
The problem, as it seems to me, is that skill is largely found in the first round. "He who wins the first round/plays the last card wins the game" is true in almost every game I've played even back in the beta. The way the math works out, if you go hard and win the first round, and pass the second so that your opponent has to burn a card to win, you will almost always get to play the last card. So numbers are on your side, and you can just hang on to something like a super-high card, or something that pulls more cards from your deck (lambert, eskel, ves) and that's it.

I mean... part of the skill is knowing when you're going to get wrecked R1 and have to pass. As long as you don't go below 5 cards in-hand on blue you're not losing CA R2. For red it's 4 cards in-hand. Heh, funny how that coin flip fix works out. Granted, I doubt hand limit with 3 card draws was meant to address coin flip. Presumably these were to allow engine based approaches to function better. Assuming they don't get ripped a new asshole by control. The point is TA+1 extra mulligan doesn't exactly correct it either.

So what the game needs in my opinion is cards that shake things up more, because 9/10 if you set yourself up to have last turn of the game in round one, it's basically just going through the motions from there.

Well, part of the irritation at the moment is the way round win cons work. They tend to snowball or run away with the game. This is why the problem described above is... a problem. It's why winning R1 feels like the name of the game right now. Without R1 you are most likely denied last say. When win cons run away with the game last say is a bit too important. It's extremely difficult to overcome many win cons when they have last say.
 
What this game needs is an alternative win con. The classic mill deck was such a thing. The way Gwent works doesn't allow for much flexibility, partly because of the lack of health.

My suggestion would be the introduction of Quest cards. It's something I need to think on some more to give a proper example (and balancing). The idea is that when you play a Quest card, you have to fulfill a certain condition thereafter, like kill x amount of units or have a unit of x strength or greater on the board. The quest card will remain active for the rest of the game. Once you complete the quest, you'll win the game.

With the Quest system there are many things possible and many variations. Mine was but one example.
I love the idea, though it would be hard to balance depending on wether you can choose your quest or not.
I'd actually like the idea of each player getting let's say 3 random contracts on the start of each game, and fulfilling one of them gives you a bonus, like boosting a unit for example.

IMO, the game doesn't need to be more complicated, and it certainly doesn't need to be more like MTG. MTG, Hearthstone...I hate those games, they are mostly luck-based (cue the rage) for the simple fact that playing cards requires a resource, so even the best strategies fall on their face if the draw screws you over.
I agree that Gwent should be less about RNG, that was always one of its defining differences to other CCGs for me...
but with Homecoming, the mulligan system got changed in a way that enables more RNG, and the removal of tutors does not help either, so it looks like, atleast to me, that the devs want more RNG in Gwent (Other hints: create is still in the game, new reveal)

My point about complexity is, I don't really want the game itself to be more complex per se (although I do not understand some limitations that we're given), but rather for the cards (card effects). As a lot of people point out, every single match feels the same, and I think that boils down to every card basically having one of 2 effects: deal X damage, or buff by X, and I think that needs changing.
Look at leaders for example, the most popular leaders in homecoming are probably Crach and Eithne, and maybe Woodland Spirit. what are their effects? Simple damage/buff.
 
I'd actually like the idea of each player getting let's say 3 random contracts on the start of each game, and fulfilling one of them gives you a bonus, like boosting a unit for example.

It should never be random. If you play a deck that taps into the requirements of the contract, it would be unfair. And then the opponent plays a buff deck and gets "kill x units".
 
It should never be random. If you play a deck that taps into the requirements of the contract, it would be unfair. And then the opponent plays a buff deck and gets "kill x units".
Then maybe you get shown 7 and can choose 3, or something like that. I feel that if you could freely choose, that there will be a few best that everyone chooses, or worst case that are so oppressive they just enable one archetype to dominate everything else.
 
Then maybe you get shown 7 and can choose 3, or something like that. I feel that if you could freely choose, that there will be a few best that everyone chooses, or worst case that are so oppressive they just enable one archetype to dominate everything else.

The contracts should synergize with the deck you're playing. This means each deck doesn't pick the "strongest" contract, but rather one that can be completed with the tools available. A control deck would go for the "x kills" and a boost deck would go for the "gain x strength". These values needs to be carefully balanced. Control is usually easier and safer, so it should require a bit more effort.

Side note, the examples are still very boring, but it gets the point across. The contracts are only limited by the imagination of the devs.
 
baseball needs more complexity, introducing blernsball:

point being, yes, it needs more complexity, but not by adding complex cards with a small novel for effects. card effects should remain simple. ex: geralt igni has a two lines of text effect, but add a massive amount of complexity to the game. move a card to row = complexity, switch places of two cards = complexity. complexity is when you have powerful effects all over the place counterable with all factions in many ways.
 
baseball needs more complexity, introducing blernsball:

point being, yes, it needs more complexity, but not by adding complex cards with a small novel for effects. card effects should remain simple. ex: geralt igni has a two lines of text effect, but add a massive amount of complexity to the game. move a card to row = complexity, switch places of two cards = complexity. complexity is when you have powerful effects all over the place counterable with all factions in many ways.
I fully agree that cards effects should rather be shorter than longer.
But you actually make a good example in Igni. That card got massively simplified in Homecoming. It's effect stayed the same but there are 2 simple reasons why it's way harder to play around it now: we only have 2 rows which, espescially the way a game plays out with usually 2 long rounds, makes evading it nigh impossible, and in addition it is also harder to block Igni because must units are way closer in strength than they were in beta, it's quite easy to set up Igni on a lot of 4 strength units.
Where in beta it was an essential skill to play around Igni, and it was really fun doing so imo, now it's more or less inevitable that you get Gigni'd. That's one of the many small things I hate about Homecoming, and the fixes are so "simple":
add the 3rd row again and raise the base power level of cards again. This alone gives more complexity and also more cards variety.
Another issue I see is, with the game being as it is, the variety of effects cards can have is limited, espescially compared to other card games. This may not be (a huge) issue now, but if Gwent has any kind of longevity it will become a problem. Imagine Gwent was as old and had as many expansions as Magic. I don't know how many cards there are in Magic, but imagine you had a similar amount in Gwent and now have to design a new card. What effects do you give it? There are only so many cards that can have damage by X when Y, or destroy if condition Z is met.
The point I'm trying to make, and what I mean with "complexity" is the following: The devs have stated that they want card texts to be as short as possible and also not just be an assortment of card tags where you have to read what each tag does first, but I think having this will be an absolute necessity in the long term for Gwent to stay interesting. Sure, they could release cards with slightly similar but not exactly the same effects for a while, but let's be honestat some point we will stop looking at the pictures and say: "thats the same as that other card"
 
This was the direction I preferred in beta.

SC

Elf Ghost Protector
8 Spirit Points - 1 Spirit Points counts as 2 Life Points

Elf Spirit Child
4 Points
Take 2 Spirit Points from an ally and give a unit spirit armor.

Spirit armor (Token)
If this unit get damaged, deal the same damage to a random enemy unit

Crystal Trap
Spying Artefact
Increase the Counter by 2 for each received damage.
If a unit is in this row damage it for each counter and decrease the counter

NG

blood goblet
Artefact
Increase the Blood Counter each turn for each unit in this row

Fallen Mag
Take 10 Blood Points and possessed a enemy unit.

Possessed ( Token)
Each turn damage self by 1 and the unit to the left by 1.

ritual Sacrificial
Destroy a allied unit and charge a blood goblet by the double Life Points of the unit.

For Artefacts I am not a fan of them but I would give them elemental Points ( Stone, Metal, Wood, Ice(Water)
In this case they can receive normal damage and are more vulnerable by specific attacks like weather, thunder, damage form a unit …
This increase as wall the design space. Ban Ard Golem Smith: Take 20 Points armor into a iron golem.

Iron Golem
10 Metal
Protect the units left and right
Protect: This unit receives the damage of the protected unit.
 
Top Bottom