GWENT'S DESIGN 02: BALANCING

[DaddyHoggy]

Well yourself answer your question in The beggening.

The problem of bad monatization is that, they cant sell so many cosmetic so they need to try to sell New kegs.

So since everyone has already a full set of cards, every New card should be a "must have card" so People will buy kegs to have it.

But, in fact, veteran players has so many scraps that we dont need to buy it, but problably New players will have to

Good point about new players.

Although, in my defence, there have been new packs being released for almost the whole time I've been playing - so, I still stand by some of what I said, I never bought with cash any of the new card kegs ever, I played until I had enough rewards to either exchange ore for kegs or craft with scraps. I guess I've never had FOMO and have been prepared to learn the game rather than just get the latest card(s). For example, of all the cursed toad cards, the only one I'm using is travelling priestess.

 

[DolphPingus]

I always play homebrew and casually play and could never get past rank 5 either however a part of me still wanted to reach pro rank. I had a bunch of people help me reach pro rank but it was with netdecks that I had to figure out or need help figuring out. I'm happy I reached pro rank with their help, but I prefer the feeling of playing my own decks that I don't need to figure out and I prefer playing at my own pace instead of spending everyday trying to win to reach pro rank. It's unnecessarily stressful.

The vast majority of people that agree with this article is made of reddit rank 10 "memers" that like to play with broken stuff and crazy/random/unreliable combos. Which is completely fine, everyone has his taste.
But this has nothing to do with balancing the game. I just dont understand why these players talk about balance when this feature it's their last concern, because they don't implement any strategy, they don't understand matchups and they basically don't care. If tomorrow devs release a card that says "win the game instantly if you roll this random x combination" they are going to love it, but for all the ones who like to use the brain, manage their resources and consider the right time to pass, it is just a terrible design.
Balance is useful to keep spicy and intriguing pro ladder and competitive scene, otherwise it is completely useless. Just print "jaw-dropping" rng and broken stuff expansion after expansion and the job is done.

 

[Jan_Szybawski_KRK]

The vast majority of people that agree with this article is made of reddit rank 10 "memers" that like to play with broken stuff and crazy/random/unreliable combos. Which is completely fine, everyone has his taste.
But this has nothing to do with balancing the game. I just dont understand why these players talk about balance when this feature it's their last concern, because they don't implement any strategy, they don't understand matchups and they basically don't care. If tomorrow devs release a card that says "win the game instantly if you roll this random x combination" they are going to love it, but for all the ones who like to use the brain, manage their resources and consider the right time to pass, it is just a terrible design.
Balance is useful to keep spicy and intriguing pro ladder and competitive scene, otherwise it is completely useless. Just print "jaw-dropping" rng and broken stuff expansion after expansion and the job is done.

Gwent is a business. Business Is money. So the best way to see why any decisions in business are made, You just have to follow the money and see how that impact potential earnings. In that particular matter: if they (they=gwent devs) introduce broken cards, prople have to buy that cards to win. Than they nerf previously broken cards, and introduce simultaniously more broken tnan previous ones were. Vicious cycle, same pattern for last 3 years.
Honestly? I dont know- maybe they have market reaserch that shows that majority of potential gamers like that kind of game design? I doubt it, but it is possible, who knows? As You said that many people are chearring for that article - that can be group of incels that dont have anything else to do as You suggest, or they can be normal casual players just shearing they opinion, I have no idea. Or maybe just the opposite - devs already perfectly know that game is going wrong way, but they hubris don't allow then to admit mistakes and break that cycle.
But what I know for sure, are two things:
1. that is a monetization style of gwent what is breaking game balance with every expansion in the first place, everything else is secoundary - and article is avoiding that topic (maybe because author is not a decisionmaker i matter of moneization and he prefer to not write in public about that? )
2. I personally hate that kind of breaking the game with every new expansion policy, I prefer restrein myself from playing. But I have no idea how many other players are just like me, maybe i am in marginal minoroty and that is why it is as it is.

 

[DolphPingus]

Gwent is a business. Business I money. So the best way to see why any decisions in business are made, You just have to see how that impact potential earnings. In that particular matter: if they (they=gwent devs) introduce broken cards, prople have to buy that cards to win. Than they nerf previously broken cards, and introduce simultaniously more broken tnan previous ones were. Vicious cycle, same pattern for last 3 years.
Honestly? I dont know- maybe they have market reaserch that shows that majority of potential gamers like that kind of game design? I doubt it, but it is possible, who knows? Or maybe just the opposite - they know that game is going wrong way, but they hubris don't allow then to admit mistakes and break that cycle.
But what I know for sure, are two things:
1. that is a monetization style of gwent what is breaking game balance with every expansion in the first place, everything else is secoundary - and article is avoiding that topic (maybe because author is not a decisionmaker i matter of moneization and he prefer to not write in public about that? )
2. I personally hate that kind of breaking the game with every new expansion policy, I prefer restrein myself from playing. But I have no idea how many other players are just like me, maybe i am in marginal minoroty and that is why it is as it is.

Jan, you basically said everything in the first 3 lines lol

I just want the devs to be frank, all their announcements are so evasive and unclear. Just tell us if you want to transform this game into a sort of Hearthstone 2.0, throwing away all the skill expression. Your game, your choice, it's fine.
But, at least, we know what we are talking about.

 

[pinoko]

If its not ask too much, could you send me The first article too (dont worry i wont up the especifi topic, just read it). Since The first article i want to read it in portuguese but I forget to ask it

Sorry, I'm late. You may already know where to find it, but I'll leave it here just in case. Cheers!

O Design de GWENT 1: Recrutamentos

Boas-vindas a esta nova série de artigos sobre o conceito de GWENT. Regularmente, publicaremos um material sobre os grandes conceitos que compõem GWENT, filosofias de projeto e outros assuntos relacionados. Convidamos a todos que entrem em contato com tópicos que gostariam de ver sendo...

forums.cdprojektred.com

 

[Brippe]

Gwent is a business. Business Is money. So the best way to see why any decisions in business are made, You just have to follow the money and see how that impact potential earnings. In that particular matter: if they (they=gwent devs) introduce broken cards, prople have to buy that cards to win. Than they nerf previously broken cards, and introduce simultaniously more broken tnan previous ones were. Vicious cycle, same pattern for last 3 years.
Honestly? I dont know- maybe they have market reaserch that shows that majority of potential gamers like that kind of game design? I doubt it, but it is possible, who knows? As You said that many people are chearring for that article - that can be group of incels that dont have anything else to do as You suggest, or they can be normal casual players just shearing they opinion, I have no idea. Or maybe just the opposite - devs already perfectly know that game is going wrong way, but they hubris don't allow then to admit mistakes and break that cycle.
But what I know for sure, are two things:
1. that is a monetization style of gwent what is breaking game balance with every expansion in the first place, everything else is secoundary - and article is avoiding that topic (maybe because author is not a decisionmaker i matter of moneization and he prefer to not write in public about that? )
2. I personally hate that kind of breaking the game with every new expansion policy, I prefer restrein myself from playing. But I have no idea how many other players are just like me, maybe i am in marginal minoroty and that is why it is as it is.

Here I need to disagree

I know plenty of other card games, and Gwent is actually one of the game design examples of low powercreep.
Powercreep in some degree is inevitable, but designers here are constantly trying to make viable old cards or at least trying to revive archetypes.
About monetization, I think that Gwent do it pretty well, you constantly have events, now aesthetic elements, kegs and a lot of interesting stuff.

About the last expansion, we are sure they will tweak and adjust these cards.
Is just matter of time.

 

[jiffyb333]

It's astonishing how much perception can affect playing the game. I found that when I stopped regularly browsing the Gwent subreddit the game was way more fun. Because I wasn't influenced by what decks or archetypes were 'terrible' in the eyes of the Reddit community I was able to play decks that felt incredibly powerful to me that I later found out were considered 'trash tier.' Your current buffing method of uplifting underplayed archetypes has really made patch day so exciting! It gives me so much to dig into, and feels wholly unique. So rather than hoping some of the cards fit into an archetype I already wanted to play or was already playing I get to sink my teeth into a bunch of fresh ideas. I've been a Gwent fan since closed beta and honestly Gwent has never felt in a better place. Thank you guys for always one up yourselves and continuing to iterate the game to the best of your ability!

 

[Jan_Szybawski_KRK]

About monetization, I think that Gwent do it pretty well, you constantly have events, now aesthetic elements, kegs and a lot of interesting stuff.

About the last expansion, we are sure they will tweak and adjust these cards.
Is just matter of time

Straw man detected. Even waste of time to answer for me.

 

[Brippe]

Straw man detected. Even waste of time to answer for me.

No Strawman, Im Bernard Rippe a board game designer and I don't have any relationship with the Gwent company or any video game company. I work for Fantasy Flight in plenty of other board/card game companies in the past, and I'm talking about facts, not just speculating stuff like you're doing in your post.

This answer only show your lack of background information and unrespectful altitude to start a friendly dicussion.

Bernardo Rippe

Evaluator of statistics and mechanics of various video games. He began his incursion in boardgames since 2000. In recent years he has dedicated himself to looking ways to innovate on the mechanics of current modern boardgames. He considers that this hobby is in some kind a way of modern art...

boardgamegeek.com

Post automatically merged: May 8, 2022

Back on the topic
There is a group of cards that make the current meta unplayable and repetitive.

*Devotion decks are absolutely no competitive,

* Ring of favor is on every deck,

* Nekker is the most valuable card on the even with the degree of randomness, in some decks you can mitigate this handicap pretty easy.

* First meditating mages and now is the Traveler priestess... these decks are no-brainer. The concept is interesting but on the practice are just annoying and there are plenty of decks that can't counter this decks, as other user describe as a Rock Paper Scissor.

* The sword is interesting as a concept, but a little random, as all other users comment.

The other cards are just ok, but some are pretty broken....

 

[quintivarium]

I think that the biggest balance issue with the last card drop (and given the expansion title, Forgotten Treasures, I fear that it will persist through the entire expansion) is that most of the best cards are artifacts and specials. These cards admit almost no tactical response, and often limited strategical recourse. The result is that quality of game play has little bearing on results. All that matters is the matchup, the coin flip, the card draws, and the deck design. Only the latter requires player agency — and given the ease of copying good decks, deck design does not much depend upon skill either.

There may be some issues with individual cards having balanced levels of effectiveness, but those issues are dwarfed by the level to which they enable poor play to succeed.

 

[Jester776]

Snip

I was under the impression that Forgotten treasures is a card drop, is there an official confirmation that it's a larger expansion?

 

[Rawls]

Couple posts deleted. Please don't personally go after other people. The topic of the thread is not "the quality of other people's posts." First rules of the Forum Regulations are kindness and respect. If you can't do that, don't post.

 

[El.Zappo]

Yes, that was confirmed, they are calling it the "Year of the cursed toad expansion". There will be multiple card drops related to this expansion, one of them larger than the FT, I think the next one.

 

[MasterLoki]

All the Nekker deck feel like the same and is very boring to play against, why focus on point slam neutral but not devotion?

I too sense the devoltion archetype need some more love, so cool to think in making decks on the individual styles of each class

 

[Deezy88]

I think that the biggest balance issue with the last card drop (and given the expansion title, Forgotten Treasures, I fear that it will persist through the entire expansion) is that most of the best cards are artifacts and specials. These cards admit almost no tactical response, and often limited strategical recourse. The result is that quality of game play has little bearing on results. All that matters is the matchup, the coin flip, the card draws, and the deck design. Only the latter requires player agency — and given the ease of copying good decks, deck design does not much depend upon skill either.

There may be some issues with individual cards having balanced levels of effectiveness, but those issues are dwarfed by the level to which they enable poor play to succeed.

Good points. I feel like with Ring of Favor in particular, you could almost hear the devs saying, “we’re not going to address the insane tempo that some decks can generate - we’ll instead print an answer card so that you can keep up.”

 

[DolphPingus]

Very high chance that next meta will be the same as this one. Priestess and nekker/aerondight decks are going to dominate ladder.
Tweaking priestess is absolutely useless if the required buff works when the card is in hand.

I expected the patch note to be bad, but not this bad.

 

[Fargothwave]

I think that the biggest balance issue with the last card drop (and given the expansion title, Forgotten Treasures, I fear that it will persist through the entire expansion) is that most of the best cards are artifacts and specials. These cards admit almost no tactical response, and often limited strategical recourse. The result is that quality of game play has little bearing on results. All that matters is the matchup, the coin flip, the card draws, and the deck design. Only the latter requires player agency — and given the ease of copying good decks, deck design does not much depend upon skill either.

There may be some issues with individual cards having balanced levels of effectiveness, but those issues are dwarfed by the level to which they enable poor play to succeed.

Remember that one (hundred of) time(s) people at this forum opposed the notion of Korathi being a major sloppy play/gamedesign enabler?
Also remember how popular unitless SC become when they're viable, despite being hated by everyone and their dog?
And, well, do you realize how prominent netdecking has been during the recent seasons in Gwent? And how deploy-heavy everything has become? (I know you do)

Yeah. The thing is, devs don't care about the agency, and players mainly want it for themselves, but not for their opponent. Gwent is doomed, not necessarily as a game in general - there're many people who find it fun this way, but as a game I would consider strategic and "smart".

 

[ArcanaBlast]

I completely disagree with the positive statements of commentators about the article. Contrary to the title, the author tells readers that the balance is only a subjective assessment of the current "metagame" by the player.

Trying to predict the effect of changes in a massively interconnected system is already a hard task, but accounting for players’ perception makes the entire thing an even tighter fit.

There is not a word in the article either about the principles of building a balance that guide game designers, or about their methodology, or about tools. In fact, the author wants to convince us that "balance" does not exist, just like the spoon in The Matrix. facepalm.jpg

 

[starrzz]

It's a long and skillfully written essay. May I paraphrase, less skillfully but shorter: "leave devs alone, Gwent meta is not their fault, it's all because of the players and how subjectively they perceive balance."

There is some truth to it. But most of the time, people play the strongest decks because they are in fact the strongest. Most meta now is Nekker because it's overtuned and unprecedentedly effective in its raw pointslam. Not because someone wrongfully decreed it is so, and the others followed. And not because of novelty. The support argumentaion in this essay is extremely selective and sometimes simply incorrect.

I agree that Reddit does Reddit things, and people have "opinions." But in general the message of this essay is not something I can agree with. It would be tiresome to try to refute it all so let me just focus on this one thing:

Jackpot is also an interesting case. Following its rework in 9.0, it was at 16 provision and dominated the faction. A 1 provision nerf in 9.1 impacted it but still left it dominant, and it pretty much disappeared after a 2 provision nerf in 9.2… Only to resurface in 9.4 following the nerf to Tunnel Drill and eventually took over the faction again. Since Price of Power had a pretty quiet impact on Syndicate at the time, it goes to show how much the perception around this leader ability evolved. It also raises the question, if it had been released at 13 or even 12 provisions right away, would it have been tried?

This argument completely misses the point. The shifts in Jackpot playrates were definitely not because of how the provision nerfs affected the playerbase psychologically. It was almost exclusively because of the changes to the alternative archetypes which happened at the same time - first crimes, then crimes again (Drill nerf) and then Pockets - and the changes in the meta of competing decks.

At the same time, we’ve had a lot of past examples of singular provision changes having massive impacts: Maxii Van Dekkar’s buff in 8.2 had the card go from being considered as something that would never work to an icon of competitive decks, Eist Tuirseach’s nerf in 9.0 led to a disappearance of Warrior decks, etc…

Putting forward Maxxi and Eist as a part of the same argument in a bit of a fallacy. Maxii is a stand alone card. A single provision change can often make of break those. Eist represents a whole archetype. Completely different scale and perspective. Also, same as the above Jackpot example, it's not the Eist provision change that killed Warriors. They were simply powercrept by other things.

The author seems to select those arguments at will and ignore the fact that it shows a certain lack of understanding of meta - how interconnected it is and what actually influences playrates.

very bad monatization system

Gwent is practically F2P. The only money you ever need to spend is for cosmetics. I hate to see how this so misunderstood. And so unappreciated in today's world of greed in the gaming industry. CDPR deserves huge respect in this.

Also, the argument that you need all the new cards to be competitive is just wrong. Majority of new cards never become meta. The real problem is in those that do and how overtuned and undertested they are.

 

[uber_croupier]

It's a long and skillfully written essay. May I paraphrase, less skillfully but shorter: "leave devs alone, Gwent meta is not their fault, it's all because of the players and how subjectively they perceive balance."

There is some truth to it. But most of the time, people play the strongest decks because they are in fact the strongest. Most meta now is Nekker because it's overtuned and unprecedentedly effective in its raw pointslam. Not because someone wrongfully decreed it is so, and the others followed. And not because of novelty. The support argumentaion in this essay is extremely selective and sometimes simply incorrect.

I agree that Reddit does Reddit things, and people have "opinions." But in general the message of this essay is not something I can agree with. It would be tiresome to try to refute it all so let me just focus on this one thing:



This argument completely misses the point. The shifts in Jackpot playrates were definitely not because of how the provision nerfs affected the playerbase psychologically. It was almost exclusively because of the changes to the alternative archetypes which happened at the same time - first crimes, then crimes again (Drill nerf) and then Pockets - and the changes in the meta of competing decks.



Putting forward Maxxi and Eist as a part of the same argument in a bit of a fallacy. Maxii is a stand alone card. A single provision change can often make of break those. Eist represents a whole archetype. Completely different scale and perspective. Also, same as the above Jackpot example, it's not the Eist provision change that killed Warriors. They were simply powercrept by other things.

The author seems to select those arguments at will and ignore the fact that it shows a certain lack of understanding of meta - how interconnected it is and what actually influences playrates.



Gwent is practically F2P. The only money you ever need to spend is for cosmetics. I hate to see how this so misunderstood. And so unappreciated in today's world of greed in the gaming industry. CDPR deserves huge respect in this.

Also, the argument that you need all the new cards to be competitive is just wrong. Majority of new cards never become meta. The real problem is in those that do and how overtuned and undertested they are.

His main focus was balancing, and he is right. Almost every time there is a new release, new cards are heavily overpowered and nerfing them takes weeks, while it's obvious they're too strongalmost immediately. This repeats itself almostall the time. It took months for scenarios to obtain Doomed status or weeks to nerf Blood Eagle or Viy - cards that were incredibly overpowered upon release.

Ryan said himself, they want to balance everything, treat all factions different to their gameplay. But then they add several OP neutrals that any faction can use in almost same way. So what is it then?

Adding new cards should expand the possibilities of gameplay in Gwent, not limit meta to few archetypes that all use same cards. And that unfortuantely is almost always the case when new release hits.