Extended Positioning

+
Extended Positioning

Update June/2018:

I think positioning should matter more in this game. If you think about the gwent board is a battlefield it's clear that how you position your units should have a major influence on the game. The question is about what type of positioning we talk. Currently you can decide wether you want to play your trebuchet on the melee or siege row but it doesn't really matter....and what general whould put it on the melee row?Battlefield feeling? No way. You can decide where to put it on a row, but it also doesn't matter in most cases, because there is a huge lack of cards with positioning related effects. What CDPR seems to want for homecoming is making it more meaningful on which row you put your unit on (they are also removing a row, which makes the choice already less interesting than with three rows), but thinking about gwent as battlefield there a quite a few units, where it's quite obvious on which row they are most effective. That's why I'm in favor of a prefered row system (there are also a few gameplay reasons, read here: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...ed-opportunity). CDPR also wants to add prefered rows for some units, but I don't know what exactly they have in mind. Anyway this post is not about prefered rows, but about how to make positioning more important. They used to try some stuff and changed cards, so they would have positioning related effects, but gave up on many of those cards. They said, they wanted to make those card more flexible and I agree with them that it didn't really work well. In my opinion the reason why it's currently so hard to implement interesting positioning related effects is because these effects are limited to the cards to the left or right. What the game needs is a system there positioning also effects the cards on the row above/below.

I came up with this idea:
The new board would look like this (still 3 rows, because I think 2 rows suck):

Melee: L5 - L4 - L3 - L2 - L1 - R1 - R2 - R3 - R4 - R5
Ranged:_ L4 - L3 - L2 - L1 - C -- R1 - R2 - R3 - R4
Siege: L5 - L4 - L3 - L2 - L1 - R1 - R2 - R3 - R4 - R5

(L: left; R:right; C: center)

There are three new key words:
- in front (example: L1,R1 (melee) are in front of C; L3,L2 (ranged) are in front of L3 (siege))
- behind (example: R2,R3(siege) are behind R2(ranged))
- surrounding (example: C is surrounded by L1,R1 (melee), L1,R1 (ranged) and L1,R1 (siege) )

I though about two different concepts how to fill the rows:

1. (my less favourite option)
There are predefined slots, where you can place your cards. It is possible to play another card on an already filled slot if the slot to the right or to the left is still empty so that you can push the other card to that slot. For cards like PFI you need three adjacent slots, which are empty (if there are for example only two emtpy slots and you can't push any unit to the side, it will only spawn one PFI).


A few card design ideas the system would allow (I've also added a PRS):
- Trydam Infantry: 8 power/4 armor; if played on melee: Protect the units behind it (protect = absorb damage)
- Warcrier: 2 power;agile; boost up to 3 damaged surrounding units by half their power (in early open beta it was: 'Boost 3 damaged units to the left by half their power', now it's way more flexible, PS: bring the regressing tag and self wounding archetype back, fck bearmaster)
- temerian drummer: 6 power, if played on ranged: every turn at turn start boost 2 surrounding units by 1 (not random, good to stagger your units to avoid a big scorch or igni, works well with trydam)




2.
If you're placing a card on the empty ranged row, it has to be at C, on the empty melee and siege row you have two options. Then you can play cards adjacent to the ones already on the board until you have reached L5/R5 (L4/R4 Ranged) on the left or the right side. You can also place cards between two cards (example: you played cards on L1-L2, now you place one between them and the new card would be at position L2 and the one which was there before would be at L3). If one card is destroyed, the other cards don't change their position (example: board state is as described before: L2 gets destroyed, L3 doesn't have an adjacent unit now, but still stays at L3. I'm not sure if you should have to fill the empty space before playing a card at L4, but probably yes or at least some sort of punishment for having holes in your formation). If one half of a row (row divided into left and right half) is full, you can replace a card (destroy one and put the new one at this position).
(Units, which spawn other units, like woodland spirit are problematic (still searching for the best solution).)

update September/2018:
Maybe I'll add a few card designs for fun(using option 2):

Redanian Knight: X power (X is just a placeholder, numbers aren't important here)
melee: Deal 2+Y damage to the opposing unit(s) (Y= the number of counters on this unit)
ranged: Advance(1) and add 2 counters to this unit.
siege: Advance(1) and add 2 counters to this unit.

explanation:
Counters work similarly to those in MTG; I don't think there is much to explain here
advance(x): In x turns at the start of your turn, move to one slot in front of this unit and activate its ability (row specific if not agile)

opposing: hard to explain it in words:
opponent(mirrored):
R: R1--C--L1
M: --R1--L1
own side:
M: --X--R1
R: L1--C--R1

The opposing unit of x is at R1 on the melee row(if not empty). If R1 is empty the opposing you units would be R1 and C on the ranged row. This means it could deal damage to 2 units instead of 1. As an opponent you should try to avoid this situation.

I like this card's design, because both the choice of row and positioning on the row are important.
 
Last edited:
I'm convinced that the general idea has great potential, but I'm not sure if my concepts about how two fill the rows are that great. I'm open for feedback and any new ideas. Things like 'formation-bonuses' could also be interesting, but I'm afraid the game could become too complicated then.
 
Last edited:
I don't like 1., because the board could look really ugly if there are emtpy spaces between cards everywhere.

2. sounds better. I like the redanian knight idea lorewise.....it would bring back some of the lost battlefield feeling.


BornBoring;n10334572 said:
Currently you can decide wether you want to play your trebuchet on the melee or siege row but it doesn't really matter....and what general whould put it on the melee row?Battlefield feeling? No way

Yes, too much agility is stupid. I'm shocked that it's even worse now than it was at the beginning of open beta. Stopped playing there. I'm still waiting for CDPR to tell me how they want to turn gwent into a battlefield again.
 
I woulnt go with fixed rows. in front/behindis just okay, so you can choose all of them. Fixed rows are away to static. What maybe could work is a half-fixed row. So you have alsways two scenarios:
1. Two rows with some card amount (equal/unequal) then you always have one unit excatly behind or in front of it, whoch can trogger some abilities.
2. None row have same amount of cards (one equal, one unequal), you dont have any cards excatly in front/behind your cards, the abilities dont work.
 
cunningasaweasel;n10968581 said:
I don't like 1., because the board could look really ugly if there are emtpy spaces between cards everywhere.

Yeah, the more I think about it the less I like the first option.

Fimbulthrym;n10968860 said:
I woulnt go with fixed rows. in front/behindis just okay, so you can choose all of them

What exactly do you mean by fixed rows? Do you mean that there are fixed card positions/slots? Then, well yes, the first option doesn't seem to be a good idea. The 2nd option also has kind of fixed card slots, but your board grows dynamically. I'm thinking about one or two modifications though.



Fimbulthrym;n10968860 said:
1. Two rows with some card amount (equal/unequal) then you always have one unit excatly behind or in front of it, whoch can trogger some abilities. 2. None row have same amount of cards (one equal, one unequal), you dont have any cards excatly in front/behind your cards, the abilities dont work.

If I understand this right, it would make it all a bit tricky tbh. Play one extra card and nothing works.
 
Last edited:
BornBoring;n10968914 said:
What exactly do you mean by fixed rows
Sorry, yes i mean fixed places instead of fixed rows.
BornBoring;n10968914 said:
If I understand this right, it would make it all a bit tricky tbh. Play one extra card and nothing works.
You could use this one for abilities which trigger if placed, so you dont have to care much about this unit later. If it is a permanent effect, you can say "every beginning of you turn a unit in front/behind this get xy". I dont see a much tricky part there. Sure i could be hard to get excactly the unit you want to get this buff (especially againt Nilfgard) buts like this NR-card which buffs the neighbours while it has armor.

Iuliandrei;n10968920 said:
If you have a proper battlefield-like board then it shouldn't be a problem, for example this is how DoC did it (also with 2 rows, melee and range), i personally like it and the current gwent aesthetic makes the board look more polished than this
Man I miss this game, Ubi trashed it really bad.
 
Top Bottom