Gwent HC problems - Analysis and implementation (In depth, 35 pages - only for goodwill people XD)

+
Dear CD Projekt Red, dear Gwent staff, dear everybody
I'm excited to post this analysis (you can find the .pdf attached to this post) that I finished on the 27th of february regarding HC.
I hope it can be helpful to have many insight on possible directions that the game could implement.
WARNING: this is NOT a negative post/analysis: in here I just point out many mechanics (rules in the game) and dynamics (emergent patterns that arise when mechanics are put in motion;
Order effect is a mechanic; stacking order effects is a dynamic
) that I think are important to adress.

I love to talk about game design, I work in an italian boardgame studio, and analyzing games is my job, so please don't take this as an attack, but rather as an interesting discussion.

I know it is a long analysis - you can find the .pdf attached to this post (35 pages with many pictures), but there is a summary with links to every paragraph in the second page.
If you want, feel free to read the titles and have a look to the specific things you are most interested in.
If then you think I'm saying reasonable things, you can maybe read on and maybe have a discussion; if not, you can close without having lost too much time and effort. Thank you anyway for taking a moment to read.

A couple more disclaimer:
Simple: I sent a mail with a presentation and the file to CDPR mail on the 27th of february, but nobody answered (it was expected it: I mean, who would even look to the material of some unknown guy?). I phoned to their headquarter after a week and they told me to send it again... But no further reply even then (waited another week). I asked some guys of the italian Gwent community if they have some contact but they ignored me (I'm not angry, I understand their situation... maybe they thought preventively it was a joke!). Then I asked some of my favourite streamers but they never replied or dismiss it as a joke too. So here I am.. XD
the analysis was completed on the 27th of february before the last artifact updates and before the previews of expansions. But main points are still more than valid
Interestingly enough, the new coming expansion - Crimson Curse, which seems refreshing and I’m looking forward to play - is following some of the guidelines of the analysis, which make me even more incline to show this work, because it means I independently found the same problems CDPR wants to focus on.

Here is an introduction: I feel that with Homecoming the game has become slow, less fun and interesting . My main concerns are the lack of tension and climax and I tried to think about many changes that would make Gwent better.
I want to give a feedback both from a player and a game designer point of view (I am a long date TCG player and I work in a italian boardgame studio), introducing the big
problems I think Gwent should face . In particular, these are my main concerns:
  • Staying true to Gwent core statement (Gwent is a game about armies clashing where the players are commanders and the cards are their forces) by giving to players:
    • the feeling to be in the middle of the battle (dynamic boardstate withMulti-turns effects);
    • tension and meaningful choices and dilemmas
  • Implementing simplicity in the core mechanics:
    • Play a card or pass (no other actions); beginner friendly core rules;
    • Playtime and Heuristics (for both casual and pro players)
    • Deckbuilding, provisions and balancing improvement:
  • Renewing gameplay and card design to fit perfectly the core rules of Gwent:
    • Implementing Multi-turns effect (Engine, Trigger, Timer) design andgameplay;
    • Remove Order effects from the game and translate them into interesting Multi-turns effects (the mere existence of Order effects lead to too many terrible and unfixable dynamics);
    • Solve the binary of Removal effects by moving to indirect removal and timer locks; designing cards thinking about how to counter fractions of value;
    • Use more the potential of Gwent tools, such as Armor, Shields, Movement, card’s statuses, Resilience, Spy, etc.
In the last part there is also an example of cards design that uses the principles of my analysis, where I make sample rework of many cards across each faction (see 3.00 - An example of cards design rework with all previous principles in mind).
Gwent already took a nice step forward in the right direction with the Mulligan update, other fixes and the new coming expansion, but I hope my thoughts can prove interesting and helpful. I know how much feedback is important in creating a new game, and how many iterations are needed to build a final product.
I really want Gwent to succeed more and that’s why I wrote such a long review in my little spare time! I’m looking forward to see people have unbelievable fun playing Gwent. And to play like that myself even more. With appreciation and love.
 

Attachments

  • GWENT HC PROBLEMS - ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION.pdf
    473.2 KB · Views: 751
I can tell you put a lot of heart into this, and im sorry i didn't read the entire thing (35 pages is pretty intimidating) but I really liked your main points.

The way Homecoming introduced filler cards to the game is pretty sad. I miss having bronze cards being the core of the deck and the silver/golds there to support them. Now entire decks are reliant on the combos of 4-5 expensive gold cards while all the other cards are just there to fill up space. You said it feels like a empty turn when players play a 4 provision/4 point card and i couldn't agree more.
 
I can tell you put a lot of heart into this, and im sorry i didn't read the entire thing (35 pages is pretty intimidating) but I really liked your main points.

The way Homecoming introduced filler cards to the game is pretty sad. I miss having bronze cards being the core of the deck and the silver/golds there to support them. Now entire decks are reliant on the combos of 4-5 expensive gold cards while all the other cards are just there to fill up space. You said it feels like a empty turn when players play a 4 provision/4 point card and i couldn't agree more.
Why sorry? Thank you for taking some time to read the main points. That means a lot.
I'm glad many things sounds right to you. The "trash cards" are painful because they just impact the tension/climax of the game in negative way. There should be also "filler cards" just to wait a turn here and there, but pretty much all the plays should be meaningful in one way or the other (especially long term) to have really good gameplay.
And I hope the game will shape into this meaningful direction!
 
I might give it a go later. But kudos for the effort.
Mind that you don't need to read every single thing... Maybe you can just look at the summary and find the things that interest you the most! I tried to organize and put quality of life things like the links on the summary to make it easier to have a global idea of the stuff... I know 35 pages is quite big (even if I could go on for at least double the length without repeating anything! XD)...
Thank you for your interest though!
 
You've done a great job to point out what's going wrong with Gwent... and what most people complain about these days.

The boring, unnecessary, slow tempo induced by order mechanics and its counterpart, auto-include removals (licorns, etc.) to balance the engines.

Fixing one problem should solve the other, and some of your suggestions are very interesting; however i'm less convinced by your love for RNG... There is way enough RNG in the game, most of it making cards unplayable, and remember that RNG is not fun - for one or the other opponent. In my mind most of the actions should be deterministic, but right now we do not have efficient ways to play around engines (other than hard removals). Much can be done to improve position/row mechanics.

CDPR has demonstrated that they are not afraid by major reworking... and there is hope because I do not believe in a mobile phone release with the actual order mechanics... and business is on mobile :)
 
Skimmed some of it, but it mostly seem bang on point and whilst I'm no pro I did say the same thing about how it should be much more 'difficult' to remove cards. There's just no way a 4 prov bronze filler should be able to completely ruin a Gold play. In basic terms, bronze cards should really only be able to impact other bronze cards - not sure how that would play out or if it's feasible, but it would just mean changing cards like Viper Witcher so it can only 'banish' a bronze, not a gold.

Harald is a good example - 9 provs, 7 on the board, possibly worth 10. Not a great card. However, it's almost always instantly killed/shackled without fail every time. It's so mind numbingly boring that you basically put down cards knowing for a fact they will be killed/locked the next turn! Greatsword? Lock. Dagur? Killed. Longship? Locked. Yoana? Killed. Repeat for every faction.

This is the problem when CDPR act so stupidly by ignoring more or less EVERYTHING that went into Gwent Beta. We have a new game, with really poor mechanics, that itself is barely a Beta game. It's so flawed and broken with obvious reasons - in a single player campaign, you will need to be able to 'destroy' the opposition (AI) to progress through the game. All they did was make the 'destroy' game a multiplayer one, then scratch their heads as to why it's hated so much. Odd.


What I will disagree with is that RNG is infuriating, appalling and unnecessary. It's one of the worst aspects of the game and the likes of Shupe, VW's, etc., should be reworked completely. There's just no real need for random in a game allegedly about skill.
 
You've done a great job to point out what's going wrong with Gwent... and what most people complain about these days.

The boring, unnecessary, slow tempo induced by order mechanics and its counterpart, auto-include removals (licorns, etc.) to balance the engines.

Fixing one problem should solve the other, and some of your suggestions are very interesting; however i'm less convinced by your love for RNG... There is way enough RNG in the game, most of it making cards unplayable, and remember that RNG is not fun - for one or the other opponent. In my mind most of the actions should be deterministic, but right now we do not have efficient ways to play around engines (other than hard removals). Much can be done to improve position/row mechanics.

CDPR has demonstrated that they are not afraid by major reworking... and there is hope because I do not believe in a mobile phone release with the actual order mechanics... and business is on mobile :)

Thank for taking your time to read. Order mechanic is a really big problem when it comes to bad dynamics emerging...

As for the RNG, we have to be careful! I didn't say that RNG should be prominent, but that should be in the game IN A CERTAIN WAY for sure. I can give you an example:

Reinforced Trebuchet
Ranged: Every turn, on turn end, damage a random enemy on the ranged row by 1.

Trebuchet is an example of good RNG card. It's not broken but CAN offer removal potential and its randomness can be directed (in a certain degree). Let's make some example:
If the opponent has only 1 unit on the ranged row, you are assured that you hit it.
If you move an opponent's unit from the ranged row, Trebuchet will more likely hit one of the remaining.

We can even think about changing the effect like this:
Ranged: Every turn, on turn end, damage the highest enemy on the ranged row by 1.
Is it less RNG?
Yes and no.
What happen if there are two enemies on the ranged row that have the same power? Trebuchet will hit RANDOMLY one of them (as it happen with fog, biting frost and some other effects).
As for my personal preference, I prefere the last one (the "less" rng Trebuchet).

But the point is: is rng by itself a bad thing?
Absolutely not!
I mean, these type of effects introduces a whole king of long term strategies heuristics and other kind of dilemmas that are called risk/reward. In cases like this the (limited) RNG aspect does not influence the ability of good players to win more. Examples? Think about Poker or Backgammon where there is a BIG rng component: both are extremely high skillcapped games (and two of the most competitive ones!!)!!

Right now there is pretty much no rng in Gwent (aside from the draws... it's a card game!). Just look for example at the final of Gwent Open
: the only random card is Prince Villem (whose rng can be controlled, as that of Beta Djikstra in Hyper-thin NR - and this is a good thing) and a semi-random rng Shupe (that gives a display of choices, so it is waaaay less random than many think). That's it.
Good rng lead to many dynamics that can be refreshing, especially if you implement good rng in a card game with hidden information or in a long single-turn-based game (Gwent is good for fitting good rng thanks to it's structure - turns in which you play 1 card, rounds, pass; other ccg could not implement good rng like Gwent simply because they can play way too many cards per turn). First example that come in mind? look at AndyWand vs Tailbot in Gwent Open 5... This was hilarious and caused by rng (it's just an example of what we miss without good rng):

Just to finish, I agree about bad rng, which is stupid and should not be in the game.
Nobody likes goose game (at least not older than 7 people XD).
Bad RNG currently in the game:
- Almost every Reveal
- Viper Witchers
- Gascon (no, I don't think it is bad RNG... He is so bad that this is simply a trolling card, so it's fine... It's just a 75% of the times bad points.. XD)
- ?

Good RNG
- Hawker smuggler
- weathers when ticking on same strenght units
- Reinforced Trebuchet
- Villem and Roche
- Rotfiend
- Tridam infantry
etc.

And all of the good rng cards can be tweaked to be "semi-rng effects", like:
Tridam could be: Whenever receives a boost, damage a random lowest enemy by 1
or: Whenever receives a boost, damage a random enemy on the opposite row by 1
or: Whenever receives a boost, damage a random non-boosted enemy by 1
and so on

Finally... CDPR has proved to be willing to change the game and fix problems. The expansion already has maaaaany new cards that are waaaaaay more interesting than the one we already have... So I'm optimist!
Post automatically merged:

Skimmed some of it, but it mostly seem bang on point and whilst I'm no pro I did say the same thing about how it should be much more 'difficult' to remove cards. There's just no way a 4 prov bronze filler should be able to completely ruin a Gold play. In basic terms, bronze cards should really only be able to impact other bronze cards - not sure how that would play out or if it's feasible, but it would just mean changing cards like Viper Witcher so it can only 'banish' a bronze, not a gold.

Harald is a good example - 9 provs, 7 on the board, possibly worth 10. Not a great card. However, it's almost always instantly killed/shackled without fail every time. It's so mind numbingly boring that you basically put down cards knowing for a fact they will be killed/locked the next turn! Greatsword? Lock. Dagur? Killed. Longship? Locked. Yoana? Killed. Repeat for every faction.

This is the problem when CDPR act so stupidly by ignoring more or less EVERYTHING that went into Gwent Beta. We have a new game, with really poor mechanics, that itself is barely a Beta game. It's so flawed and broken with obvious reasons - in a single player campaign, you will need to be able to 'destroy' the opposition (AI) to progress through the game. All they did was make the 'destroy' game a multiplayer one, then scratch their heads as to why it's hated so much. Odd.


What I will disagree with is that RNG is infuriating, appalling and unnecessary. It's one of the worst aspects of the game and the likes of Shupe, VW's, etc., should be reworked completely. There's just no real need for random in a game allegedly about skill.

A little bit simplism, but that's the point...
For the RNG part, please refer to the comment right above this... good rng is... good! don't underestimate it.
Bad and boring rng of course is not and should be removed from a game like Gwent. I fully agree on that.
Post automatically merged:

Nice work @Mirage_ . Try to contact Burza and Slama on twitter https://twitter.com/pawelburza https://twitter.com/SlamaTwoFlags
Also you can share your thoughts on reddit https://old.reddit.com/r/gwent/
Thank you, really!
I don't have a Twitter account, but I will make one right now... Thank you for the contacts!
 
Last edited:
On the start sorry for my bad englando (is in a pre-alfa version).
@Mirage_ really good job, congrats for you. You should still establish a contact with REDs. Your analysis include many interesting guidelines/tips. I suspect that could be interesting for Swim too, maybe try send it him. In the best option he can record a film with some opinions etc (he very like talking about theory - for example a recent film about Harmony & Engines in Gwent).
On a final note i'm impressed, unfortunally my language preclude to talking about specific ideas/details. This topic should be a more popular than actually is.

Good luck dude!
 
On the start sorry for my bad englando (is in a pre-alfa version).
@Mirage_ really good job, congrats for you. You should still establish a contact with REDs. Your analysis include many interesting guidelines/tips. I suspect that could be interesting for Swim too, maybe try send it him. In the best option he can record a film with some opinions etc (he very like talking about theory - for example a recent film about Harmony & Engines in Gwent).
On a final note i'm impressed, unfortunally my language preclude to talking about specific ideas/details. This topic should be a more popular than actually is.

Good luck dude!
Thank you for the kind comment and appreciation!
I'm trying harder to contact CDPR, as some of you suggested... Pawel already answered to me via Twitter saying he will have a look at the analysis (but I guess he is actually REALLY busy with the promotion of the expansion, so I doubt he will have time to answer back very soon, I need to be patient).
About streamers, maybe I can contact some more, as I tried with some and had no success (they ignored me just to put it plain and simple...).
Finally don't worry about the language... I mean, I am no english mothertongue too... and what you wrote is more than understandable! Curious to know your opinion, and on what you agree/disagree, and more considerations!
 
I've read your doc and found myself agreeing with a lot of points. I also do think that orders and multiple actions per tern as they are right now contains downsides. And as much as i like some designs (Adda damaging units on passing) others seems to be quite extreme (damage/boosts units on a row, spawn weather on both rows and so on) yet i see about which direction you were talking about. Over a year ago i've read another doc by a redditor and it was brilliant, i think you might find it interesting to look.
 
Last edited:
I've read your doc and found myself agreeing with a lot of points. I also do think that orders and multiple actions per tern as they are right now contains downsides. And as much as i like some designs (Adda damaging units on passing) others seems to be quite extreme (damage/boots units on a row, spawn weather on both rows and so on) yet i see about which direction you were talking about. Over a year ago i've read another doc by a redditor and it was brilliant, i think you might find it interesting to look.

Thank you for sharing... REALLY an interesting paper... I missed it...
It's nice to see other people talking about "meaningful decisions"! That's the right direction...
I started reading, and it's pretty cool.. I like the basic principles of the analysis even if many effects are a little bit too "complicated" to suit who I think the target of Gwent is, in my opinion.. Yet the principles are the same as mine, so I agree with the authors!
Still a gigantic work, 60+ pages... holy....
XD
Thank you again for showing me this!
 
Just saying - you lost me with the cards changes suggestions. Should have stopped before that.
 
Don't worry, they will probably change the game completely again. That way they can "address" all the criticism/complaints, like last time (from beta) ;) .

And here is a generic (and likely false) promise, the game will improve and be better. Just wait!

I hope I'm wrong.
 
CDPR don't seem great at "listening".

Problem: too many bronze fillers.
CDPR: let's add a bunch of new cards and leave the old ones where they are, thus have even more filler to plough through.

Problem: too much removal.
CDPR: let's make a few damage cards, such as spear and Sihil, unusable but do nothing about anything that just removes cards.

Problem: too complex with things like orders.
CDPR: how about purify, assimilate and bleeding as well?
 
Deleted two off-topic posts, and edited out the off-topic part that started it. This thread is NOT about the economy change, which has its own threads elsewhere. This thread is for discussing the document in the OP.
 
Just saying - you lost me with the cards changes suggestions. Should have stopped before that.
I mean, you don't need to read everything... Just stop where you want...
Even the cards changes are just a mere example: I don't want CDPR to use them, but it was only to have a complete analysis.
I think many of them are interesting, but they need waaaaay more iterations to be good for the game (come on, I am not the developer, and I didn't playtest them!)
Nevertheless, some of them are undoubtly flavourful and interesting, as the Wild Hunt effects:
- whenever an enemy appear on the opposite row, do X; then exhaust self (becomes a no-effect unit)
It is interesting because it gives the opponent the choice of when to activate the effect (whenever he will play a unit on that row) but at the same time if you play multiple Wild Hunt unit on the same row they will affect the new unit all at once. And if you play 1 Wild Hunt unit per row, your opponent must face a threat (he can chose which one) and many other positive dynamics (if I follow up, I will never end... XD).
- flavour: Wild Hunt is searching for Ciri... it's like: whenever something come in their way to take her, they will react!
Post automatically merged:

CDPR don't seem great at "listening".

Problem: too many bronze fillers.
CDPR: let's add a bunch of new cards and leave the old ones where they are, thus have even more filler to plough through.

Problem: too much removal.
CDPR: let's make a few damage cards, such as spear and Sihil, unusable but do nothing about anything that just removes cards.

Problem: too complex with things like orders.
CDPR: how about purify, assimilate and bleeding as well?

I know some things can be frustrating, but I don't want to complain, but rather to discuss...
For example I think that purify, assimilate and bleeding are AWESOME mechanics and perfect addition to the game.

I agree with you for the bronze filler cards, buth I'm more interesting in sharing a solution.
For example the provision gap in my opinion should be less big...
One good thing of Open Beta was that Gold cards were strong, but they were not worth much more than a bronze card (just ignore complex boardstate: the more complex the boardstate is, the more the expected value of a card can be different from its average).
Gold 16, Silver 14, Bronze 12.
While I'm not here to say that we should go back to that system (infact I'm NOT: we shouldn't go back!), the good thing of that system was that Bronze cards were not surclassed by Golds.
In Homecoming a 14 provisions is way stronger than a 4 provision card (a card is worth triple points than the other).
Maybe just tweaking the provisions range could solve the problems (instead of going from 15 to 4 provisions, just going from 6 to 12, so a card can be ON AVERAGE (please, understand it's not a science) at most double the value of a "weak" one.

As for the infamous artifacts and on, they nerfed them because they were simply a big problem. They will change them for sure again, but I wouldn't look at it as a tragedy, by now..
Doing a good game and make good and interesting effects is difficult, and mistakes are easily done... But with a little patience everything will be fixed.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most things said about orders/timers and engines/removal.

I don't think though that lowering the differences in provisions is enough. Beta Gwent in terms of deck design was strongly built around synergies (or at least it used to be before midwinter, then they introduced too many pure value cards like beastmaster, half elf hunter etc) and archetypes, where every card had its purpose. I think we should look at the bronze core of a deck as an entity and not just a bunch of cards. Therefore I'd prefer having a minimum of 15 bronze cards per deck and provisions only for gold cards. Additionally I prefer having a maximum of 3 bronze copies again.
 
Top Bottom