Jobs Store Support Register

[Final-Discussion] About 2 rows

+
1) Debatable. I dont see any improvement in visuals, they are only bigger. I dindt care much about it now and dont will in the future.

2) Only true for early Game-state. It will be more difficult to balance out 2 rows in later state, because you dont have less screws to adjust problems

3) You still have these planning thoughts with 3 rows, even more planning is needing there, if you adjust the reach mechanic for 3 rows of course. It will be most likly never more strategic, if you remove some complexity out of something

Very true. The game will be gain a much higher audiance from going mobile. Its just sad its loses many fans from today, so i dont care if it will profit from it,if I am not part of it.

4) Movement is heavlie restricted by the row-limits, which is a cause of the row reducement as well. You can also not permanent row effects, because they would be to strong, if you dont have a hardcounter with it. With 3 rows, you can always play around some effects and always get some time. Which is nearly impossible with 2 rows. With 2 rows it is also more difficult to protect your engines from row effects. with 3 rows i can dodge weather for example 2 rimes, with 2 rows only 1 time.

5) It goes for the quality of arguements, not for the pure number. For exapmple, there will be always more advantages then disadvantages for killing people.
1) I was talking about both cards and boards. Regardless, like it or not visuals are very important to attract people in a game, even in this genre. It was a necessity.

2) You have more screws in other places.

3) HC have a meaning there because you actually need to think about units placement or you risk making a row you need full. With 3 rows, that is a non-issue and thus a so-called "dumbing down" of the strategy

4) Permanent row effects are problematic in the first place. I really like how they went with timers for weather. Which is also more thematically, because fog, rain and snow don't last forever but they stop after a certain point.

5) Arguable.
 
Just found this thread, so re-posting here from big pile of random PTR feedback topic.

TL;DR: I think the new round system is way better than what we have now and sounds better to me what fixed-row early beta version (which I didn't have chance to play, only W3 version with some friends). I also think it actually would work better 2 rows than 3. Unfortunately there's just not enough cards that capitalize on that.
(Although statistics in OP seem significant underestimations to me as it doesn't account for many positional cards not having explicit Melee, Ranged or Reach keyword and actually these are the cards actually make the whole system interesting).

I'm not gonna talk about current system as there's more or less an agreement in the community that current row system is almost meaningless. Let me know, if you disagree with this. I can also share my opinion on this.

So what's good in the new row-system:
  • Reach mechanic obviously makes the list. It capitalizes on row placement and gives solid basis. It's simple and elegant: you have the vulnerable, but offensive Melee row and the more protected Ranged row. Reach 1 goes melee-to-melee, Reach 2 you have to decide to protect your card or target the ones your opponent tries to protect. It's also a choice whether you only want to protect your key engines, or want to spam Ranked row denying opponents Reach 1 (and Ranged Reach 2) cards risking a big Lacerate.
  • Then there are the cards that trigger only from one row. I think that's better than simple row-locking as it gives you options and while you pretty much have to place your stronger Golds on the "right" row, with bronzes you could often get by without the added benefit. I got punished a couple times when wanted to maximize effect of all my row-locked cards. Since we usually start the round with our bronzes, we have to anticipate and make these decision beforehand. If new Gwent manages to evolve into a meaningful 3-round game, then you also gonna have to plan from start which row-locked Golds you wanna play in this round and which one later - if necessary adapting on the way as round goes on into more risky plays.
  • Choose row for effect cards add even more complexity to this, as it may be non-obvious which is the right row from ability aspect (although very often it is).
  • There are also cards with less obvious row considerations like Magne Division which is one of the more interesting generic bronzes. It's usually your first play and you have to decide right then which row to put him on based on your and opponent's anticipated cards so that you can benefit from its ability for as long as possible (assuming he won't just get insta-killed of course :)). You also have to decide during the round when to put your first unit next to him (shutting him down in the process), because you want to play a row ability or just for the sake of avoiding excessive row stacking.
  • Then we have punish cards like Lacerate what we already know from old Gwent, but with less rows to distribute units among and the added restrictions, it's not that easy to dodge these cards anymore. You no longer have to build the entire deck around movement or row-stack encouragement (e.g. weathers) to get decent value from these cards.
    • Also we do not have these punish effects on dedicated hate cards only, but also on archetype cards like Deathwish Kitten (formerly Blood Moon, don't recall its proper name right now). Granted there's not many of these latter effects right now, but more on that later.
    • It's also nice to see more effects that capitalize on placement than plain "damage everything on one row", like Blue Mountain Elites or that NG Soldier unit that damages by number of the units on the other row. Many cards capitalize on adjacent placement as well: trying to play around Arachas Venom seems like an interesting challenge.
Where it should be improved:
  • While as mentioned there are some punish cards, there aren't that many that gets played. Probably it's just not that easy to make randomly room for a Lacerate in most decks. I still see possibility for it to become at least a tech card.
  • As mentioned before there are not too many archetype cards capitalizing on placement. We have archetype synergy cards with bland effects. And we have cards with interesting mechanics that capitalize on opponent's row placement on cards that have no synergy with anything, so don't find a place in any of the decks. The solution is obvious for me: move the interesting effect to archetype cards, redesign the other card from scratch.
  • I also see that Reach cards are usually not punished for Melee row placement. I mean they can be punished indirectly if they get played into row-hate cards, but most of them you don't really want to protect to consider Ranged row placement as they only have Deploy effect. A positive example in this sense is Imlerith or Ves as you have to decide whether you want to target enemy's engines on Ranged or protect your own Order activation. A less obvious example of the mechanic utilized well is Cyclops who you also don't have to protect, but the enemy can keep weakening your viable cannon fodder cards on Melee so adds a nice possibility for counterplay.
  • I don't think that any-row cards and any-row eliminations are properly priced at the moment. They should be either of higher cost or more conditional or risky plays. I see this mainly as a balance issue. I mean why play into Ranged row for protection, if it's not much harder to eliminate your unit there? Why worry about row-stacking if you can fill up your deck with enough any-row units to balance out the row-restricted ones?
  • I also think it needs some more fiddling in general to find out which cards and abilities should be row-restricted (and to which row) to have impact, but not too much impact. (Right now we're more on the not enough impact side it seems.) No wonder, it's a pretty hard balancing problem.
So why not 3 rows?
  • With more rows it becomes more easy to play around punish cards.
  • Row-restricted abilities would also get distributed into more rows weakening the restriction.
  • Choose row for effect cards would become impossible to balance in the masses. Coming up with 3 viable and sort of equal options is challenging enough. Weighing in which rows to put which effect (considering which rows other cards would get played) seems like a nightmare. Or you may make them activate an effect on multiple rows, again weakening the impact of row placement restrictions.
  • It seems like an overcomplication for no good reason.
    • I started my description with how 2-rows feel simple and elegant. It's also more intuitive. What would be the role of Ranged row in this system? You want your engines on Siege row, offensive cards on Melee, what to put into Ranged? "Protected but not that much protected"?
    • Same with Reach. We would have Reach 1-4. What would Reach 2 do in this system? Or 3 or 4? Again it's very intuitive with 2 rows, seems overcomplicated with 3.
    • Still only the same general rules would apply: put your units as backwards as possible to protect, while also avoiding excessive row-stacking and choose the row for effect intended. Choosing the right would just become a harder memory game to recall which possible enemy units have which row-restriction or exact Reach value. I see no real added depth.
  • UPDATE: Less tutors mean less units on the board, 2 rows seem more fitting for current number of units.
  • I said earlier that it's hard to make the system work properly even now. With 3 rows it would become even harder.
To summarize I don't think the new row system works perfectly right now, and that's an understatement. But also think it has great potential.
Adding another row would increase the complexity for sure, but I see no real added depth here, as all new mechanics work with 2 rows in a more intuitive and less finicky way. It may increase the difficulty of the game, but not the kind of difficulty I'd aim for. Also it would make it harder to implement and balance right.
Not bad actually. I have a couple on notes on his in depth analysis though:

1) He makes too many assumptions. Words like, "..sounds better" and "it feels.." are basically assumptions.
2) The counterarguments about the 2 rows also are solid in my opinion.
3) We need to take into account the old Gwent, did we learn from it? Because it was obvious that there was a kind of bottleneck somewhere, so severe that Devs felt they needed to completely scrap the development.
4) If we indeed learned something, things should be more apparent and obvious now and assumptions should not exist.

I do hope they got it right this time. From cautiously optimistic i have become concerned, especially knowing they don't take "negative" feedback seriously. Time will tell though, time will tell.
 
Not bad actually.
Well, thanks. :)

Here's my take on your notes. It may or may not help further clarifying how I meant what I wrote:
1) He makes too many assumptions. Words like, "..sounds better" and "it feels.." are basically assumptions.
2) The counterarguments about the 2 rows also are solid in my opinion.
3) We need to take into account the old Gwent, did we learn from it? Because it was obvious that there was a kind of bottleneck somewhere, so severe that Devs felt they needed to completely scrap the development.
4) If we indeed learned something, things should be more apparent and obvious now and assumptions should not exist.
1) They're not assumptions, but opinions and not very strong ones in this case. Forming a strong opinion about such complex subject after just a couple days of play is premature I'd say. Actually I'm pretty sure that some people having strong opinion at this point already had it before even knowing anything about the new system. :)
2) I'm not sure which counterarguments you're referring to, if you were referring to any specific at all. In general I think there are some valid and some BS arguments on both sides of this matter.
3-4) In general I agree, but sticking to row system only: I think pre-HC Gwent has an almost non-existent one, so I'm afraid there's not much to learn from it. :) I try to refrain making strong statements about earlier (e.g. closed beta) row systems as I haven't played them, so I only have some feelings and yes, assumptions about them. I did play Witcher3 version though with some friends and that felt quite underwhelming.
 
(to start, sorrry for my spelling mistakes, english is not my mother language... now that we got that out of the way.)

i just realt want the game to be how it used to be...

they took the third roll and said "the game will be better this way" they never asked us if we wanted that :/

here is the thing... me, and i belive that most of people... downloaded this game for a simple reason, we liked the gwent from witcher, i myself loved the fact that there were 3 rolls, and each roll had 1 specific unit for it, i loved the fact that you could not just place a unit anywhere... you were obligated to make your deck in a way to mind the fact that moust units were suposed to go in only one roll, and thats it! so build your deck carefuly to balance your units.

and than after a long time wighout playing th game, i downloaded gwent hoping to have that same good old game... and i was... disapointed...

now, i recived a strike recently for loosing my head with this, so i gonna try to be polite... but realy, if they wanted to completly change the game... they at least could put an option inside of it, for those of us who want to play the old version, you know?

"hey guys, here is the new version we made, but if you dont like it, you can click in this button right here and play the old version!"

than, those of us who want to play the old version (and mind me saying, i think that like 70% of us prefer the old version) we could just go there and play it... but they "had" to cut that option out and say "you can only play the new version, forget the old one" well as i said before... i am not playing the game, if i cannot play the game i want to play... that is that same one from witcher 3...
 
the only explanation for 2 rows is they wanted to make cards bigger
Rather, its to make the game simpler.
Simpler to play because you only need to think in 2 rows.
And also simpler for them, now they dont need to think of a 3rd effect for cards.
Basically removing the 3rd row dumbs the game down for all parties
 
I don't know what goes wrong with CDPR but it seems they really forgot old best traditional way & adapted modern approach from witcher 3.

I mean I just love Witcher 1/2 for the ancient witcher world they created with awesome bg music/sounds & solid RPG feel to it but Witcher 3 looks so modern with everything that they killed that feel, the real atmosphere of wither world & tern the game into modern looking adventure game which may be many new gamer or those who don't play 1/2 loved it but definitely not me.

Same thing happened with Old Gwent & this New Modern looking Gwent. Old gwent was simpler but competitive, addictive & fun to play but this New Gwent is just mehh.. Only show off but sadly No Feel to it :/