GWENT; General Discussions

[TootyNooty]

Who needs to pay rent? Bah, CDPR just take it all.

Never got into Hearthstone because I was too late to the party but I hope this takes off, love the physical version.

 

[Sammpemannen]

Really psyched for this! I Loved Gwent in Witcher 3 and I love Hearthstone. I also don't think free-to-play is too bad of a fit for this. Might be wrong about that though, but it will probably be at least good either way

 

[Belly45]

Me too! Never got into Hearthstone. For me it was the framework that CDPR used to lore me into Gwent. The Witcher Lore itself is captivating and that made it easier to wanna be a part of Gwent.

I'm not a fan of FTP and micro transactions and I know that this card game will be unique in its own right as it already proved so in W3.

In BaW I knew Gwent was gonna be a "thing" because of the amount of lore and back story that was developed.

I hope the Story Mode will include how Gwent was invented. Specifically which Dwarf or Dwarves created it. Also, how the factions were formed.

 

[ImDoneItsOver]

Will physical cards be made and sold in stores? IF SO This WILL be bigger than Pokemon, Magic the Gathering AND Yu-Gi-Oh Combined!

 

[Aditya]

Roach's Gwent card is just perfect

via kotaku

 

[Sunsibar]

Roach's Gwent card is just perfect

View attachment 54301

via kotaku

How did I miss that?! Roach definitely deserves own card.

 

[Domhnallaich]

Feeling a bit betrayed that the game is coming to xbox one before coming to ps4...very shitty if you ask me...

Current info only states that it is the beta. This may be due to cross play issues that CDPR are trying to work with Sony. Point is though, you do not know the reasons so best to be patient and see what happens.

---------- Updated at 08:04 AM ----------

I think they most likely have a timed exclusivity deal with microsoft, so it is on them. it wouldn't be the first time, ms and cdpr seem to have a good relationship.

How can you say that it *IS* on them when all you can do is assume they have a timed exclusivity deal? They never said that and they are only discussing the beta atm. There was no such deal with TW3, you have no evidence of this so best not to put negative messages out there before knowing the facts.

---------- Updated at 08:20 AM ----------

My thoughts are that 1) Giving preferential treatment to one console over the other isn't really in keeping with what CDPR has done in the past, and I disapprove. .

I have not seen anything that suggests this is the case, have you? Please remember that it is only the beta that they have mentioned is coming to XBOX and PC. It appears that you do not know the reasons for this so please do not make assumptions that this is preferential treatment. There could be legitimate issues on Sony's side for this i.e. getting them to agree on cross play with XBOX and PC.

Micro-transactions are never good. Period. And I'm hoping to god that CDPR does not plan to start implementing them in all of their games.

This is not true, that may be how you feel about the matter but, it is untrue. The gaming industry has a lot to answer for as far as micro transactions are concerned but, that does not mean it is fundamentally a bad thing. The game is going to be F2P but, CDPR staff need to eat so, the game is going to have to generate money in some fashion. If done right, there is nothing wrong with having in game transactions.

3) I generally dislike free-to-play titles and would have preferred a premium version where you just pay the $50-60 up front and call it a day.

Everything that I have heard thus far - console exclusives and favoritism, micro-transactions, FTP - seems at odds with CDPR's corporate philosophy thus far, and I don't understand the departure.

Most people on here don't seem to have an issue with any of the above, but it's worth bearing in mind that these sorts of practices typically start with a trickle, and end in a deluge.

Please see my comments above.

 

[lord_blex]

How can you say that it *IS* on them when all you can do is assume they have a timed exclusivity deal? They never said that and they are only discussing the beta atm. There was no such deal with TW3, you have no evidence of this so best not to put negative messages out there before knowing the facts.

because it makes more sense. why would the ps4, the console that supported 3rd party cross-play way before the xbox, not be in the first wave of testing? the two consoles aren't that different - if it works on the xbox, I'm sure they could make it work on the ps4 in half a year.
and I know it's only the beta, that's why I even think they could do this. they wouldn't do it for an actual release, for sure.

but I'm just speculating, I wasn't trying to accuse anyone with anything.
regardless, even if it is a programming issue, that's still not really sony's fault, which is what the comment I replied to said.

 

[Domhnallaich]

because it makes more sense. why would the ps4, the console that supported 3rd party cross-play way before the xbox, not be in the first wave of testing? the two consoles aren't that different - if it works on the xbox, I'm sure they could make it work on the ps4 in half a year.
and I know it's only the beta, that's why I even think they could do this. they wouldn't do it for an actual release, for sure.

but I'm just speculating, I wasn't trying to accuse anyone with anything.
regardless, even if it is a programming issue, that's still not really sony's fault, which is what the comment I replied to said.

How can it make sense with only speculation to go on? It makes as much sense as me saying that the issue *IS* at Sony's side. Which BTW I am not but, it highlights the point I think.

With regards to cross play, from what I know on the subject, the PS4 cross play was between PS4 and PC, not PS4 and XBOX. From that perspective Microsoft were the first to extend that offer between console platforms and Sony has not yet given concrete support for that. Technologically there should little to no issues with cross play between consoles. Since the advent of the internet and all the standardisation that went with it, such as communications protocols like TCP/IP etc, cross play has always been possible. To me, the lack of it looks to have been down company policy, more than anything else.

When you say you were not trying to accuse, that is exactly what you did. I do not know the reason for CDPR decision any more than you do but, it is unfair to draw conclusions without having any evidence to go on. It is unfair to accuse and state things like the responsibility is squarely on CDPR, you have no evidence to support that.

 

[lord_blex]

How can it make sense with only speculation to go on? It makes as much sense as me saying that the issue *IS* at Sony's side. Which BTW I am not but, it highlights the point I think.

I wrote down why I think it makes sense.
even you admitted that it shouldn't be a technological problem. and sony have proven that they are not against cross-play, at least with the pc.
fine, say they don't want xbox-ps crossplay. there still shouldn't be a problem with ps-pc. yet we only have xbox-pc for the beta.
rocket league has both ps-pc and xbox-pc. and they aren't a large company to have a much larger influence than cdpr.
last point: cdpr announced for sure, that the game will come to ps4, so they know sony will agree to it. what would sony gain by delaying the game for ps players? if they know it will work on ps4, then the negotiations should be done by now.

When you say you were not trying to accuse, that is exactly what you did. I do not know the reason for CDPR decision any more than you do but, it is unfair to draw conclusions without having any evidence to go on. It is unfair to accuse and state things like the responsibility is squarely on CDPR, you have no evidence to support that.

fine, maybe I did. I don't consider a timed exclusive evil, so to me this is like "accusing" someone with oversalting my food. you probably take this issue more seriously than me.

anyways, I don't think I'm gonna convince you, so this is my last post on the topic. I just wanted to explain myself one more time in detail.

 

[lazaruss90]

What do you think about new spies? For those who dont know, spies now will give you two cards(one faced up, the other one down) and you need to chose one. I know that it is needed to change something with spies but is it a good change? I mean, if we have dijkstra(power 8 right now) and we will use him, then our enemy will have +8 power and we will have only one card more. I didn't play by myself but seems not worth it for me. What do you think?

 

[lord_blex]

What do you think about new spies? For those who dont know, spies now will give you two cards(one faced up, the other one down) and you need to chose one. I know that it is needed to change something with spies but is it a good change? I mean, if we have dijkstra(power 8 right now) and we will use him, then our enemy will have +8 power and we will have only one card more. I didn't play by myself but seems not worth it for me. What do you think?

I guess the reasoning is that if you just redrew the spy at the beginning, you would get a different card. if you actually play it, you get 2 chances of getting a better card. there are lots of very strong cards that might be better than a simple 8. it's definitely much less useful than it was, but it can still help.

 

[wrangman]

Feeling a bit betrayed that the game is coming to xbox one before coming to ps4...very shitty if you ask me...

I feel you! However, it might be good considering we don't want them to focus on too many platforms at once. That may cause delays or unwanted features in the game (a.k.a. severe bugs)

Now, I don't think that is the main reason. I think they got payed off and that's unfortunate for PS4 users. But hey! It's a free card game! Hang in there. We might get the PS4 version like, a month later!

 

[Rantsir]

What do you think about new spies? For those who dont know, spies now will give you two cards(one faced up, the other one down) and you need to chose one. I know that it is needed to change something with spies but is it a good change? I mean, if we have dijkstra(power 8 right now) and we will use him, then our enemy will have +8 power and we will have only one card more. I didn't play by myself but seems not worth it for me. What do you think?

I'd say they're useless now.
I would not put them in my deck anymore. They're basically a card, which we may exchange for another card at the same time giving the opponent some additional points. Completely pointless.

 

[Gwydden]

I'd say they're completely pointless now. I would not put them in my deck anymore.

I thought the same, then I realized you can still use decoys and medic cards on your opponent's spies.

I'm not sure whether that makes it better or worse.

 

[Rantsir]

d you can still use decoys and medic cards on your opponent's spies.

Use your medic basically for random card? (and still giving bonus to your enemy). Not really a big advantage. I would still prefer just draw any other random card (or cure one of my units - chosen by me) without giving my opponent additional points.

Two cards was the ONE AND ONLY reason to use spies at all.

 

[lordhovis]

What do you think about new spies? For those who dont know, spies now will give you two cards(one faced up, the other one down) and you need to chose one. I know that it is needed to change something with spies but is it a good change? I mean, if we have dijkstra(power 8 right now) and we will use him, then our enemy will have +8 power and we will have only one card more. I didn't play by myself but seems not worth it for me. What do you think?

Spies simply had to be changed. They were hilariously op. Whether or not this change is the best one possible however remains to be seen and until I actually get my hands on the game it's hard to tell.

As is I imagine they'll be useful if you are intending to throw the round. You get a chance to dig for a good card and get the card advantage which is pretty vital in this sort of game by forcing your opponent to play another card or risk throwing the round.

 

[OptoNick]

I'd say they're useless now.
I would not put them in my deck anymore. They're basically a card, which we may exchange for another card at the same time giving the opponent some additional points. Completely pointless.

Especially with their new strength of 8 points (both Thaler and Dijkstra).

Though there is some Loyal/Disloyal (spies' cards in enemy's rows) gameplay mechanics that might turn the tables.

 

[lord_blex]

medicing a spy can be useful if you haven't drawn a card you wanted to. if you already have the optimal card in your discard pile, then obviously you wouldn't do it.
also, playing a spy forces the opponent to make a move, since you didn't do anything with your own field. gwent is a lot about reacting to your opponent, so giving the initiative to them is good.

 

[SerJaimeLannister]

Especially with their new strength of 8 points (both Thaler and Dijkstra).

Though there is some Loyal/Disloyal (spies' cards in enemy's rows) gameplay mechanics that might turn the tables.

A but disappointed it's only one card. I think the spy giving you two cards could have been more balanced instead. Then again this is why they'll have a beta so they can get our input.

I'm very interested in seeing what that Loyal/Disloyal mechanic is.