Gwent was a really good Card Game, now it feels awful.

+
Hey guys, I know you put a lot of effort into HC and it shows, there's a lit of good still but overall I feel like HC stripped the identity of Gwent away but more importantly, I think a lot of the changes were not thought through and are ruining the game. I'll go into detail with potential fixes, this isn't a "waaaaaah I don't like this game, make it easier" thread. :)

1st issue is the who goes 1st system, not in terms of the coin flip but in terms of round 2 and 3. The issue is that the losing player is usually at a significant disadvantage and not going 1st after a loss makes this issue even more silly as it helps snowball the match.

Luckily the fix is simple, losing player goes 1st after the initial coin flip.

2nd issue is the mulligan system. With the massively decreased consistency due to tutors basically not being a thing mulligans are extremely important. Locking the amount of mulligans to the leader creates massive imbalance as it directly affects consistency.

Solution is also easy, make leaders cost points and increase the max points per deck slightly to compensate.

As for the mulligans, give each player 3 mulligans round 1, 2 mulligans round 2 and 1 mulligan round 1. Also remove mulligan saving. That is a broken concept which rewards RNG.

3rd issue, hand limit and cards drawn per turn. Hand limit quite literally strips the strategic depth out of Gwent. You can't make a decent swing on your turn and pass to press card advantage in rounds 2 and 3, for example. In conjunction with drawing 3 cards per turn, this means people are forced to commit until they have 7 or less cards in their hand, bare minimum.

Solution is to reduce draws in rounds 2 and 3, probably to 2. And remove the hand limit.

4th problem is Artifacts. These cards are obnoxious, uninteractive nonsense...I'm sorry but whoever thought it was a good idea to but special cards that can only be removed through very special card effects that are often bricks outside of artifact removal did not do a good job. This is like old weather cards but worse due to a slower meta and not enough artifact removal at a reasonable point cost or with dual purpose to justify the high point cost.

Artifacts need armor, once the armor is depleted, they are destroyed in addition to keeping the current anti artifact cards as they are.

5th is less to do with TCG and more to do with the game itself...it stutters and freezes all the time and is extremely frustrating on a PS4. It seems to happen when all the premium cards shimmer at the same time.

The solution would be to disable the shimmer in deck builder,if that's actually the cause.

6th, the game looks muddled with the new UI, animated leaders and board. It's a cool concept but there needs to be QoL changes.

For example, turns need to auto end if no action can be taken.

Cards you tutor from the deck/graveyard shoukd have readable text as you place them considering row placement matters now.

Different stages of a turn need to be more clearly announced.

Effects from a card need to be more evident so the opponent knows what happened.

And the final point, I personally hate how the new premium cards are done. They should be animated on the board without hovering on them and every player should have an option to disable card animations or uae the new HC system where only highlighted cards will animate.

Sorry if this seems harsh, totally not my intent, I just want to be direct and clear.
 
I agree with your suggestions about: card draw, and artifacts.

1) Card draw - returning to the previous method (initial hand-draw 2-draw 1) with no hand limit is what I prefer as well, but may not be desirable in the current tutor scarce meta as you see too few cards from your deck.

2) Artifacts - untargetable cards that can have an effect every turn requiring including a "brick" card is common to CCG's. Richard Garfield/Valve's Artifact has "Improvements" that are similar.
Some methods to fix these cards:
1) Artifacts must be equipped to a unit to be activated
2) Give all artifacts a fixed "durability" of uses until they break
 
2) Give all artifacts a fixed "durability" of uses until they break
I like this solution. They will still be viable but not game breaking.

I don't like the idea of changing the order of who goes first after a win/loss though.

Why because it creates another problem.
1) If you go first and win first round. Your opponent must win second round and because he has card advantage is easier. And this means that the opponent has the last say in the third round instead of you like it is now.
2) If you go first and lose round 1 you go first round 2. And this means your opponent has the last say in round 2 instead of R3. So he will always push for 2-0

P.S. I also like the new gwent more then the old one. And i've played the old one since CB.
 
Stopped reading at your first point - going second is way better than going first in every possible case.
 
1) The idea of who goes first the one who loses is simply a very bad suggestion. You win R1, then you are forced to 2-0. If not you won't have CA in R3, and you would face R2 with (in most cases) one card less, and also losing CA in R2. I would just dry pass in R1 even at the cost of having 3 cards banished.

2) You cannot change the card draw system without a complete overhaul of the leaders abilities. Besides, the issue you are talking about is not mulligan, is blacklisting. Blacklisting was removed (who knows why) and I agree that I'd like to see it back. Also, mulligans saving doesn't reward RNG, mulligans are based in RNG, but saving mulligans is part of the strategy of the new game mechanics and players need to use them wisely.
 
Opinions, I guess.

Yeah, but reasoning behind opinions matter. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for liking Gwent as is but given how it's objectively an unfair game right now due to some questionable new mechanics and too much RNG, supoorting why you like it might be a great idea so the devs get a read on multiple view points.
Post automatically merged:

1) The idea of who goes first the one who loses is simply a very bad suggestion. You win R1, then you are forced to 2-0. If not you won't have CA in R3, and you would face R2 with (in most cases) one card less, and also losing CA in R2. I would just dry pass in R1 even at the cost of having 3 cards banished.

2) You cannot change the card draw system without a complete overhaul of the leaders abilities. Besides, the issue you are talking about is not mulligan, is blacklisting. Blacklisting was removed (who knows why) and I agree that I'd like to see it back. Also, mulligans saving doesn't reward RNG, mulligans are based in RNG, but saving mulligans is part of the strategy of the new game mechanics and players need to use them wisely.


If you don't have CA going into round 3 you got unlucky or did something bad.

Almost every game of pre HC Gwent I was in involvee a dry pass round 2 in order to even out CA. Sometimes players would push through and go for a 2-0 as well so the way that dynamic worked was diverse. The new one only promotes going 2-0.

Dry passing at the expense of 3 cards is really, really risky. What happens if a key gold card goes bye bye and the opponent drew better? Then you just screwed yourself.

2) Ssving mulligans gives you a reroll to bypass RNG at a more critical moment...
 
Last edited:
opinions

given how it's objectively an unfair game right now
.

oBjEcTiVeLy


Seriously, I don't agree with a lot of your points; I feel like GWENT has a very sturdy gameplay foundation right now, moreso than earlier; I feel it's more fair right now due to going first not being so much of a fuck up and not being able to out tempo an opponent with the first few cards you play.

What you're writing isn't objective, it's your opinion
 
oBjEcTiVeLy


Seriously, I don't agree with a lot of your points; I feel like GWENT has a very sturdy gameplay foundation right now, moreso than earlier; I feel it's more fair right now due to going first not being so much of a fuck up and not being able to out tempo an opponent with the first few cards you play.

What you're writing isn't objective, it's your opinion

Drop the attitude, it's objectively not good because there's too much RNG which is, again, objectively bad for a card game since it stips most skill from thr game in favor.of just getting lucky.

Disagreeing is fine but with no opinion noted, why should anyone care if you can't be bothered to support your point of view? Especially when you develop an attitude over it.
 
Less arguing about whether X is objective or not, please. Try to stay on topic, and keep it civil. One post deleted.
 
not being able to out tempo an opponent with the first few cards you play.

Errrrrrr......whut?

Vesemir.....replay......vesemir.....three witchers and a horse named roach.

Oh look, I've been out-tempo'd by the most inventive strategy since "snap".
 
Top Bottom