Gwent's main problem.

[Vedamir]

I thought of what I don't like in current Gwent, what can be changed to the better. And If you put it all together, I see the only one main problem, which destroys Gwent: developers don't respect and understand the lore.
That's why the design is bad (too dark and with the lack of silver), that's why cards are bad (primitive buff/damage mechanics), that's why cards image and lore in 50% of cases are not represented in the card's mechanic, that's why rows have no metter, that's why there stupid card clicking mechanics exist, that's why new faction isn't compatible with other factions, that's why devs just removed the meaning of leaders. Developers just don't understand what are they doing.

The decision is simple: use lore as a base of game developing.

Listed points in detail:
1. Dark and dirty design lacking silver.
Witcher's world isn't dark. And it isn't light too. It's gray. Grayness, neutrality is one of the main ideas of Sapkowski's books. Silver is a variant of grayness, and it's a material of the sword, which kills monsters. It's the distinctive attribute of witchers comparing to a common warriors. Way of silver, gray way of neutrality - that's the witcher's way.
But what we have now? It's dark and dirty design with the gold elements. There is too much gold actually. So much that u are stopping valuing it. Gold must be rare, only in this case u can value it. But when all the elements are golden, when most of cards are golden, even the armor is golden - it's looking cheap and abnornal.
Ok, even if u choose the golden style of royal game, u must make it more royal-looking: remove dirtyness, remove totem sign of the turn coin, remove ragged frames of cards. If u choose a crown as a symbol, make game worthy of the crown. Make it neat. Dirty and ragged style is ok for dark games. But ur game is partly neat and light (reward book, interface neat and strait elements) and partly dark and dirty (ragged card frames, dirty, dusty ugly bloody fields - these are the most terrible things of the game, which push me away).
Better, use a witcher's symbols and style: the gray and silver, like in Beta. If it's a witcher game (as u call it in a game header), make it witcher-friendly. Witcher's are not dirty, witcher's are not rich as kings, they are lacking of gold. So, use gold in very rare cases. That's why golden cards must be remade to be silver and the leader cards can be golden (not this ugly green like a copper rust).
Another thing I don't understand in design is a fog. U made fog one of the main symbols. But fog isn't compatible nor with the crown, nor with the witcher's way. Fog is a dark element, it borns fear, the fear of obscurity. Looks like u r making some horror game but with the crown and contrast shiny elements. It's just ununderstandable tastelessness, ideas kaleidoscope. U have no the single style. Especially, I don't understand why u ran away from witcher's silver, which is supposed to present in a witcher's game. U have golden and bronze cards, but everyone knows, that there must be silver between them. Better remove golden cards. Or just return all three types of cards as it was in Beta.

2. Primitive and alien card mechanics.
Most of cards are about buff and damage - just health manipulation. But Gwent has many other elements: it's cards' position (hand, graveyard, deck, field), cards' keywords, timers, rounds, armor, effects, card's revealing, cards' milling. It's much better to use more game elements than just health manipulation what is too mathematical and boring. And all this charges and coins just aggravate the boringness.
That is another primitive thing - the card-clicking, because of coins and orders. It's too predictable and boring. It's not cards' style. Cards are hidden until played. But with orders and coins u reveal it and play them after. It's looking stupid. Coins by themselves are alien to other factions. U cannot effectively play coin cards in arena and in a case if u steal them. But it's not logical. Can u imagine that Nilfgaard cannot use some mercenaries or bandits, because they have no coins to pay them? Only monsters may have lack of coins, but other factions? It's so stupid.
Card's clicking is bad because cards are not looking like cards, when u must click them after play. There is no such a card game, whan u click the card after play. Played card is played and u cannot use it second time like a chess figure. May be I cannot clearly explain it, but order-like mechanics are looking ugly. U can say that popular Hearthstone use the same mechanic. But in HS played cards became figures - they even look differently. So there it's looking ok, But in Gwent... I prefer Gwent to be a fully card game as it was in Alpha/Beta. Why copy Hearthstone?
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of the Withcer can born many interesting mechanics, which suit cards' souls. But ur mistake is that u use lore just as a mask of desirable mechanics. Better use controversial way of making game: make lore the main and the mechanics - secondary. That wil make game and cards clear and understandable.

3. Rows does not metter.
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of any battle is that first row is only for melee, the second is for ranged troops. Simple. This will born some interesting strategies and tactics, this will return the meaning. Some cards can be flexible like flyers, which can fly everywhere above the field.

4. Leader's meaning removed.
And the cherry on the pie of this problem is removing leaders' metter. That's the picture of what Reds are doing with the game: removing meaning of everything, making everything just a mask for some abstract mechanics. That's the way to nowhere.

Conclusion:
So, the main problem of Gwent is throwing the lore, trying to make game just abstractly mechanical, just like primitive one-day game with standart lore, which does not metter. If u use such an approach, ur game will not be popular. It'll be just a one day game for the most people. The most popular CCG Hearthstone suits the Warcraft's lore very good. It has the same style, the same mechanics, the same heroes. That's the example how to make games right.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

I thought of what I don't like in current Gwent, what can be changed to the better. And If you put it all together, I see the only one main problem, which destroys Gwent: developers don't respect and understand the lore.
That's why the design is bad (too dark and with the lack of silver), that's why cards are bad (primitive buff/damage mechanics), that's why cards image and lore in 50% of cases are not represented in the card's mechanic, that's why rows have no metter, that's why there stupid card clicking mechanics exist, that's why new faction isn't compatible with other factions, that's why devs just removed the meaning of leaders. Developers just don't understand what are they doing.

The decision is simple: use lore as a base of game developing.

Listed points in detail:
1. Dark and dirty design lacking silver.
Witcher's world isn't dark. And it isn't light too. It's gray. Grayness, neutrality is one of the main ideas of Sapkowski's books. Silver is a variant of grayness, and it's a material of the sword, which kills monsters. It's the distinctive attribute of witchers comparing to a common warriors. Way of silver, gray way of neutrality - that's the witcher's way.
But what we have now? It's dark and dirty design with the gold elements. There is too much gold actually. So much that u are stopping valuing it. Gold must be rare, only in this case u can value it. But when all the elements are golden, when most of cards are golden, even the armor is golden - it's looking cheap and abnornal.
Ok, even if u choose the golden style of royal game, u must make it more royal-looking: remove dirtyness, remove totem sign of the turn coin, remove ragged frames of cards. If u choose a crown as a symbol, make game worthy of the crown. Make it neat. Dirty and ragged style is ok for dark games. But ur game is partly neat and light (reward book, interface neat and strait elements) and partly dark and dirty (ragged card frames, dirty, dusty ugly bloody fields - these are the most terrible things of the game, which push me away).
Better, use a witcher's symbols and style: the gray and silver, like in Beta. If it's a witcher game (as u call it in a game header), make it witcher-friendly. Witcher's are not dirty, witcher's are not rich as kings, they are lacking of gold. So, use gold in very rare cases. That's why golden cards must be remade to be silver and the leader cards can be golden (not this ugly green like a copper rust).
Another thing I don't understand in design is a fog. U made fog one of the main symbols. But fog isn't compatible nor with the crown, nor with the witcher's way. Fog is a dark element, it borns fear, the fear of obscurity. Looks like u r making some horror game but with the crown and contrast shiny elements. It's just ununderstandable tastelessness, ideas kaleidoscope. U have no the single style. Especially, I don't understand why u ran away from witcher's silver, which is supposed to present in a witcher's game. U have golden and bronze cards, but everyone knows, that there must be silver between them. Better remove golden cards. Or just return all three types of cards as it was in Beta.

2. Primitive and alien card mechanics.
Most of cards are about buff and damage - just health manipulation. But Gwent has many other elements: it's cards' position (hand, graveyard, deck, field), cards' keywords, timers, rounds, armor, effects, card's revealing, cards' milling. It's much better to use more game elements than just health manipulation what is too mathematical and boring. And all this charges and coins just aggravate the boringness.
That is another primitive thing - the card-clicking, because of coins and orders. It's too predictable and boring. It's not cards' style. Cards are hidden until played. But with orders and coins u reveal it and play them after. It's looking stupid. Coins by themselves are alien to other factions. U cannot effectively play coin cards in arena and in a case if u steal them. But it's not logical. Can u imagine that Nilfgaard cannot use some mercenaries or bandits, because they have no coins to pay them? Only monsters may have lack of coins, but other factions? It's so stupid.
Card's clicking is bad because cards are not looking like cards, when u must click them after play. There is no such a card game, whan u click the card after play. Played card is played and u cannot use it second time like a chess figure. May be I cannot clearly explain it, but order-like mechanics are looking ugly. U can say that popular Hearthstone use the same mechanic. But in HS played cards became figures - they even look differently. So there it's looking ok, But in Gwent... I prefer Gwent to be a fully card game as it was in Alpha/Beta. Why copy Hearthstone?
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of the Withcer can born many interesting mechanics, which suit cards' souls. But ur mistake is that u use lore just as a mask of desirable mechanics. Better use controversial way of making game: make lore the main and the mechanics - secondary. That wil make game and cards clear and understandable.

3. Rows does not metter.
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of any battle is that first row is only for melee, the second is for ranged troops. Simple. This will born some interesting strategies and tactics, this will return the meaning. Some cards can be flexible like flyers, which can fly everywhere above the field.

4. Leader's meaning removed.
And the cherry on the pie of this problem is removing leaders' metter. That's the picture of what Reds are doing with the game: removing meaning of everything, making everything just a mask for some abstract mechanics. That's the way to nowhere.

Conclusion:
So, the main problem of Gwent is throwing the lore, trying to make game just abstractly mechanical, just like primitive one-day game with standart lore, which does not metter. If u use such an approach, ur game will not be popular. It'll be just a one day game for the most people. The most popular CCG Hearthstone suits the Warcraft's lore very good. It has the same style, the same mechanics, the same heroes. That's the example how to make games right.

Gwent is not a Witcher Card Game, it is a mobile game , get used to it, Bud.
Tbh I like the idea of lore specific design, and we might just get there if Devs run out of ideas to make boost/damage cards and archtypes. I agree on that it is basically what they are doing, Bandits received a card that boosts all bandits on the row, Monsters received something similar, and I bet Salamadra or intimidate units may get something like that as well (those cards are too weak as it is). Hence to make some archetypes playable, devs will probably keep adding boost damage suporting cards that synergises with some card tags.

They will perhaps change direction, if people voice their disapproval. And I think its never too soon to do just that.
However they cannot make good design decisions every 3 months.

 

[4RM3D]

Yes, Gwent doesn't focus enough on the lore. No, that's not the main problem. And fixing it doesn't necessarily "fix" the game, but it would, at least, make the game feel more authentic.

Gameplay takes precedence over lore. There is already a thread about that naming countless examples:
Lore Inconsistencies with Cards and Mechanics. Looking at the current armor patch, I can add one more lore inconsistency: Armor doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Knickers, a dog, has one armor, but Gegroire, a knight in full plate armor, doesn't have any armor? Of course, from a design point, it's impossible to retroactively give all units armor.

Card's clicking is bad because cards are not looking like cards [...]

On a side note, Magic the Gathering, does the same thing, using tokens.

 

[Guest 4336264]

Great post there Vedamir.

Thinking about some of your points, the reference to silver (the Witcher's silver sword to kill certain monsters), it now seems to me to be inexcusable that the developers have removed the silver cards from the game (perhaps only Witcher cards should be silver). You could go so far as to add cards that can only be killed by Witchers and by silver cards (a Witcher using a silver sword).

Witchers are of different schools. It'd be nice to see that somehow reflected in the game. There were various types of armour from the schools - it'd be interesting if that could be introduced into the game (apply different types of armour to a Witcher card in some way).

Witchers also utilised alchemy - making various potions such as Swallow. Introducing alchemy into the game would also be interesting - perhaps with varying effects of such potions if used by non-Witcher units.

I've never read the books, only played the games. Still, I'd like to seem more elements from the games utilised in the card game.

I'm not sure about the 'dark and dirty' references. In the Witcher games GWENT was usually played in dark and dirty taverns, pubs, inns, etc. It's little wonder that the cards are designed to appear used and worn. Still, I think you're right about too many GOLD cards - it does cheapen gold, and makes them common. Also, with a precious gold card, it is likely that the owner of such a card would take greater care with it and keep it in better condition - the gold cards should probably look a bit cleaner.

The coin used for the flip - makes sense to change that to a coin featuring Witcher symbology.

You stated 'Witcher's are not dirty, witcher's are not rich as kings, they are lacking of gold. So, use gold in very rare cases...' - in reference to gold cards, if my understanding is correct (I agree, gold is too common and silver cards should be reintroduced - particularly for Witcher units). However, you do mention the coin mechanics and state 'Coins by themselves are alien to other factions...'.

The fact of the matter is that the Witcher usually only works for coin. If anything, a Witcher card should be earning some type of coin when destroying a unit - particularly some type of monster. What the Player can then do with the earned coin during the match is another matter - perhaps spend it on alchemy, armour, weapons, etc.

On rows, I think that there are a good few cards that can currently be deployed anywhere - even when the ability should be melee only (and the same applies to units that should be ranged only). A couple of examples are 'Morkvarg: Heart of Terror' and 'Dwarf Berserker' - these should really only be useable in the melee row.

I don't think there was ever a flyers row in the original GWENT - but a SIEGE row was certainly present.

One problem with the lack of the siege row is that there's limited space for the various cards that will be played. Siege cards must now be played on the range row. The developers caused a problem removing a row, and that's probably why lots of cards that should be melee or ranged can be played in either row - because otherwise there might not be space to play the cards where you need to / want to!

The developers, and this game, could benefit from listening to feedback such as yours - take a long hard look at the original GWENT and the current inception, go back to basics and recapture the spirit of GWENT - as well as introducing new elements that match the 'lore' (stories in books, and games, I imagine...), as well as drawing from the Witcher games such as the Witcher 3 - where GWENT was first introduced.

 

[Sleeperko]

Probably the only point worth of notice are orders. Or any other active abilities usable during your turn. I really liked the concept of og gwent - you played card, your turn is over. Only deploy abilities were present. You had to tactisize with the positioning, counting of passive effects, and order of played cards. That was simply beautiful. Now it is more or less like any other card game except mana system. I would not mind going back to the roots with that one particular thing. And third row ofc...

 

[Guest 4368268]

Probably the only point worth of notice are orders. Or any other active abilities usable during your turn. I really liked the concept of og gwent - you played card, your turn is over. Only deploy abilities were present. You had to tactisize with the positioning, counting of passive effects, and order of played cards. That was simply beautiful. Now it is more or less like any other card game except mana system. I would not mind going back to the roots with that one particular thing. And third row ofc...

I very much preferred that myself. Game felt smoother and quicker because of that. Also orders generally come down to 'damage a unit by 1/2' not the most exciting stuff. When you know your opponent is setting up an igni or scorch it's nice if you can try and play around that instead of having a bunch of artifacts and engines aligning you with ease at every step of the way.

 

[Vedamir]

Thanks, StvAce.

The fact of the matter is that the Witcher usually only works for coin. If anything, a Witcher card should be earning some type of coin when destroying a unit - particularly some type of monster. What the Player can then do with the earned coin during the match is another matter - perhaps spend it on alchemy, armour, weapons, etc.

I don't think that game must be burdended with some tokens like coins. No, it makes it similar to HS. I am standing for Gwent's individuality. Tokens in a card game are alien. Cards by themselves are more than enough to have fun and complicated mechanics.

On rows, I think that there are a good few cards that can currently be deployed anywhere - even when the ability should be melee only (and the same applies to units that should be ranged only). A couple of examples are 'Morkvarg: Heart of Terror' and 'Dwarf Berserker' - these should really only be useable in the melee row.

I think, a card can be placed in a ranged only if it can shoot or somehow support another cards. But all the swordsmen must be always in a melee. In the other hand, archers must not go to the front. Otherwise rows are useless, just remove them at all, cause it's not logical to place fighters in the back, while archers are in the front. It's nonsense. If we have a battle of two armies, than rows must have meaning in a case of army positioning. Noone places archers in the front and fighters in the back. Such an army would be destroyed very quickly.
May be, u can place archers and mages in the front, but they must be vulnerable there. And if u place the swordsman in the back, he looses a half or all his power and cannot use abilities, cause he can do nothing there with his sword. Something like this can be done to reflect the reality of the battle.

What about the third row. No, I think it's not needed. Cause ranged is enough. Siege row is the same by it's meaning as the ranged one. But now, with two rows we have more space for mobile and we have bigger cards, what is very good. I think there is 50%/50% ranged and melee cards in the game, so there almost always can be found a place for every card. And if we have at least 20% of flexible, u can always jump to the desirable row.

I really liked the concept of og gwent - you played card, your turn is over. Only deploy abilities were present. You had to tactisize with the positioning, counting of passive effects, and order of played cards. That was simply beautiful.

Yes, agree! "That was just beautiful". No other words here.

 

[petr_klokan]

On a side note, Magic the Gathering, does the same thing, using tokens.

MTG use as a key mechanics ‘tap’ a card to activate an effect. It’s very much like orders.

Oh, I just realised how much I miss MTG. It’s so superior to Gwent but also a lot more expensive and time-consuming.

Post automatically merged: Oct 13, 2019

I thought of what I don't like in current Gwent, what can be changed to the better. And If you put it all together, I see the only one main problem, which destroys Gwent: developers don't respect and understand the lore.
That's why the design is bad (too dark and with the lack of silver), that's why cards are bad (primitive buff/damage mechanics), that's why cards image and lore in 50% of cases are not represented in the card's mechanic, that's why rows have no metter, that's why there stupid card clicking mechanics exist, that's why new faction isn't compatible with other factions, that's why devs just removed the meaning of leaders. Developers just don't understand what are they doing.

The decision is simple: use lore as a base of game developing.

Listed points in detail:
1. Dark and dirty design lacking silver.
Witcher's world isn't dark. And it isn't light too. It's gray. Grayness, neutrality is one of the main ideas of Sapkowski's books. Silver is a variant of grayness, and it's a material of the sword, which kills monsters. It's the distinctive attribute of witchers comparing to a common warriors. Way of silver, gray way of neutrality - that's the witcher's way.
But what we have now? It's dark and dirty design with the gold elements. There is too much gold actually. So much that u are stopping valuing it. Gold must be rare, only in this case u can value it. But when all the elements are golden, when most of cards are golden, even the armor is golden - it's looking cheap and abnornal.
Ok, even if u choose the golden style of royal game, u must make it more royal-looking: remove dirtyness, remove totem sign of the turn coin, remove ragged frames of cards. If u choose a crown as a symbol, make game worthy of the crown. Make it neat. Dirty and ragged style is ok for dark games. But ur game is partly neat and light (reward book, interface neat and strait elements) and partly dark and dirty (ragged card frames, dirty, dusty ugly bloody fields - these are the most terrible things of the game, which push me away).
Better, use a witcher's symbols and style: the gray and silver, like in Beta. If it's a witcher game (as u call it in a game header), make it witcher-friendly. Witcher's are not dirty, witcher's are not rich as kings, they are lacking of gold. So, use gold in very rare cases. That's why golden cards must be remade to be silver and the leader cards can be golden (not this ugly green like a copper rust).
Another thing I don't understand in design is a fog. U made fog one of the main symbols. But fog isn't compatible nor with the crown, nor with the witcher's way. Fog is a dark element, it borns fear, the fear of obscurity. Looks like u r making some horror game but with the crown and contrast shiny elements. It's just ununderstandable tastelessness, ideas kaleidoscope. U have no the single style. Especially, I don't understand why u ran away from witcher's silver, which is supposed to present in a witcher's game. U have golden and bronze cards, but everyone knows, that there must be silver between them. Better remove golden cards. Or just return all three types of cards as it was in Beta.

2. Primitive and alien card mechanics.
Most of cards are about buff and damage - just health manipulation. But Gwent has many other elements: it's cards' position (hand, graveyard, deck, field), cards' keywords, timers, rounds, armor, effects, card's revealing, cards' milling. It's much better to use more game elements than just health manipulation what is too mathematical and boring. And all this charges and coins just aggravate the boringness.
That is another primitive thing - the card-clicking, because of coins and orders. It's too predictable and boring. It's not cards' style. Cards are hidden until played. But with orders and coins u reveal it and play them after. It's looking stupid. Coins by themselves are alien to other factions. U cannot effectively play coin cards in arena and in a case if u steal them. But it's not logical. Can u imagine that Nilfgaard cannot use some mercenaries or bandits, because they have no coins to pay them? Only monsters may have lack of coins, but other factions? It's so stupid.
Card's clicking is bad because cards are not looking like cards, when u must click them after play. There is no such a card game, whan u click the card after play. Played card is played and u cannot use it second time like a chess figure. May be I cannot clearly explain it, but order-like mechanics are looking ugly. U can say that popular Hearthstone use the same mechanic. But in HS played cards became figures - they even look differently. So there it's looking ok, But in Gwent... I prefer Gwent to be a fully card game as it was in Alpha/Beta. Why copy Hearthstone?
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of the Withcer can born many interesting mechanics, which suit cards' souls. But ur mistake is that u use lore just as a mask of desirable mechanics. Better use controversial way of making game: make lore the main and the mechanics - secondary. That wil make game and cards clear and understandable.

3. Rows does not metter.
The decision here is the same: just use lore. Lore of any battle is that first row is only for melee, the second is for ranged troops. Simple. This will born some interesting strategies and tactics, this will return the meaning. Some cards can be flexible like flyers, which can fly everywhere above the field.

4. Leader's meaning removed.
And the cherry on the pie of this problem is removing leaders' metter. That's the picture of what Reds are doing with the game: removing meaning of everything, making everything just a mask for some abstract mechanics. That's the way to nowhere.

Conclusion:
So, the main problem of Gwent is throwing the lore, trying to make game just abstractly mechanical, just like primitive one-day game with standart lore, which does not metter. If u use such an approach, ur game will not be popular. It'll be just a one day game for the most people. The most popular CCG Hearthstone suits the Warcraft's lore very good. It has the same style, the same mechanics, the same heroes. That's the example how to make games right.

I agree with you, except for orders. I don’t mind orders but liked Beta without orders too. Otherwise very well presented and valid opinion.

What also bothers me is that a new expansion brings one super strong deck, which devs try to hot fix and in the 11 day of the season all I see in ranked is Ardal size [6], Mystic Echo dwarves and an occasional Monsters shenanigan. Repetitive and boring as hell.

Also, I spent dust to get a premium berserker only to read ‘premium version is coming soon’

 

[Vedamir]

On a side note, Magic the Gathering, does the same thing, using tokens.

MTG use as a key mechanics ‘tap’ a card to activate an effect. It’s very much like orders.

U r putting MTG as an example, but I think, that it's a very badly designed game. It's too complicated and random. It is popular just because there wasn't any competitors and because of community, because of socialisation. People like the game by itself not so much, but they like coming together in one place and have a fun together, to exchange the cards and so on. The game by itself as I said, is too complicated and too random because of lands. Lands break games too often, because u lack of them or u have to many lands. It's stupid and it makes me angry. Another thing I don't like in MTG - all this taps and using cards as figures, using additional tokens. I thing, card game must be more like poker, searching for combinations, not like chess as we see in MTG. Why cards are used like chess figures? Why u have a face to beat? It's ugly. And HS just copied this mech in much more simple and better way. And all other games except early Gwent are just coping MTG and HS. That's why I liked Gwent - it was not like all other MTG clones. So, I don't accept MTG comparisons, cause MTG is a bad game in my view. And I don't like, when Gwent is trying to go the same way with all this additional tokens, cards reusing, loosing his initial originality and beauty.

 

[Guest 4336264]

Some interesting opinions here. There's not much I can add to what has already been said - others clearly have better ideas than me about the game.

On the point about battles and positioning of archers, it is actually the case that at the start of a battle archers can be pushed forward to weaken the advancing enemy lines. However, the archers will likely retreat behind the lines of swordsmen and cavalry, etc., as the enemy nears. Crossbowmen would, of necessity, need to be in a position to fire directly at the enemy because, unlike the longbow, it is difficult (if not impossible) to fire a crossbow over the heads of allied soldiers when aiming for the enemy. Whether this can or even should be reflected in GWENT is another question.

 

[petr_klokan]

U r putting MTG as an example, but I think, that it's a very badly designed game. It's too complicated and random.

I am just saying there is at least one card game with ‘order’ like mechanic, which is a fact not an opinion.

I like MTG very much, this is my opinion. I respect you don’t.

I agree with you rows need more attention, design is inconsistent, and decoupling leaders skins and abilities doesn’t feel right.

I don’t mind current Gwent mechanics including orders, it’s ‘just’ (as many other users said in this forum) not well balanced.

 

[Vedamir]

On the point about battles and positioning of archers, it is actually the case that at the start of a battle archers can be pushed forward to weaken the advancing enemy lines. However, the archers will likely retreat behind the lines of swordsmen and cavalry, etc., as the enemy nears. Crossbowmen would, of necessity, need to be in a position to fire directly at the enemy because, unlike the longbow, it is difficult (if not impossible) to fire a crossbow over the heads of allied soldiers when aiming for the enemy. Whether this can or even should be reflected in GWENT is another question.

Ye, I thought of this too. I think, that crossbowmen must shoot only the melee row (if there is anyone), but bowmen can shoot all rows anytime. But because of the restriction and because of crossbow is more dangerous, crossbowmen must shoot stronger. That is also affects that fact, that melee-fighters are mostly using armor. And everyone knows that crossbows has ended the age of knights, cause even a simple peasant with the crossbow can kill the knight, because of crossbow power. I think, this cards design is quite good and realistic. If, for example, ur opponent starts his turn from mage with no melee fighters, ur simple crossbow answer will easily kill his mage, in contrast to a simple archer. But archers can shoot opponent's background mages, archers and other stuff anytime in a contrast to crossbowmen, which must shoot melee-fighters until fighters are dead.

 

[SMiki55]

Coins by themselves are alien to other factions. U cannot effectively play coin cards in arena and in a case if u steal them. But it's not logical. Can u imagine that Nilfgaard cannot use some mercenaries or bandits, because they have no coins to pay them? Only monsters may have lack of coins, but other factions? It's so stupid.

SY's coins are actually described to be a special underground currency, such as those golden coins in John Wick franchise. I see no problem in SY being restricted to them.

Anyways, not so bad conclusions, even if I don't agree that they are the main problem of the game. Still, definitely more adult than "Meve acts too manly" you posted some months ago

 

[Vedamir]

I want to add some thoughts here. What's another bad thing about HC design. Cards are the game of hands, but u drop them to the feet. This game likes cleanness as hands, but u drop cards into the dirt. Cards like closed comfort space to hide ur plans and keep cards safe, but u play them in the open windy rainy world, where everyone sees everything. Cards like accuracy, but u made them ragged and dirty. Cards are swift, but u introduced orders and immune artifacts, which are heavy and slow.
Open world's game is chess. And u r trying to make open and figure-based chess from the card game. Leader figures are another step to the chess. It's a mistake - mixing two this essences. Cards and chess are absolutely opposite to each other. Open, boring and figure-based chess stays opposite to funny, closed and image-based cards. Whole HomeComming was a big mistake like Thronebreaker.

 

[nedders]

I want to add some thoughts here. What's another bad thing about HC design. Cards are the game of hands, but u drop them to the feet. This game likes cleanness as hands, but u drop cards into the dirt. Cards like closed comfort space to hide ur plans and keep cards safe, but u play them in the open windy rainy world, where everyone sees everything. Cards like accuracy, but u made them ragged and dirty. Cards are swift, but u introduced orders and immune artifacts, which are heavy and slow.
Open world's game is chess. And u r trying to make open and figure-based chess from the card game. Leader figures are another step to the chess. It's a mistake - mixing two this essences. Cards and chess are absolutely opposite to each other. Open, boring and figure-based chess stays opposite to funny, closed and image-based cards. Whole HomeComming was a big mistake like Thronebreaker.

Eh? You are aware you're looking at a screen? Touch it, it's really, really clean.

 

[BornBoring]

MTG use as a key mechanics ‘tap’ a card to activate an effect. It’s very much like orders.

Oh, I just realised how much I miss MTG. It’s so superior to Gwent but also a lot more expensive and time-consuming.

While similar at first glance, the impact is quite different. The fact, that you usually can activate those abilites on your turn or your opponent's turn and the possibility of your opponent reacting to it at instant speed enables much more decision making and makes the game feel more dynamic and interactive in some way.
I don't see much upside of the order mechanic in Gwent. Often you just use them as soon as you can anyway. Gwent used to be a dynamic and fast paced game, but now orders slow down the game. The timer based effects of beta Gwent, which were activated automatically felt much better. One of the very few good changes of midwinter update was the introduction of a positioning based priority system. The abilites of cards in the front left triggered first, siege row right last. It wasn't utilized properly, because way too much happened on deploy, but it's actually a great and simple idea to give smart positioning some more meaning. Personally I think orders are HC's second biggest problem after the handlimit, which kills the game for me anyway. I'd argue, that timer and event based abilites, which don't have to be activated manually, would make the game more dynamic and more complex at the same time.

 

[sfruzz]

Most of cards are about buff and damage - just health manipulation. But Gwent has many other elements: it's cards' position (hand, graveyard, deck, field), cards' keywords, timers, rounds, armor, effects, card's revealing, cards' milling. It's much better to use more game elements than just health manipulation what is too mathematical and boring. And all this charges and coins just aggravate the boringness.

Not much to say here. I agree 100%.

Often you just use them as soon as you can anyway. Gwent used to be a dynamic and fast paced game, but now orders slow down the game. The timer based effects of beta Gwent, which were activated automatically felt much better.

Again, I completely agree.

The more I read in the forum, the more I'm tempted to go on GOG and leave a bad review to Gwent.
I've waited an entire year. I gave myself enough time to play and test and think.

I find this new iteration of Gwent inferior to old Gwent, in almost every aspects. I'd venture to say that even day-1 Gwent was better and had more potential than this version.

They removed (in no particular order): Reach, 1 row, CA spies, CA cards, leaders, faction passive abilities, most of graveyard interaction, most of weather effects, mill, 3 bronzes per deck, old reveal, old spies, row lock, f*** promote, demote, a good deal of interesting cards...

There is not much left to remove, uh?

 

[Guest 4339135]

Not much to say here. I agree 100%.



Again, I completely agree.

The more I read in the forum, the more I'm tempted to go on GOG and leave a bad review to Gwent.
I've waited an entire year. I gave myself enough time to play and test and think.

I find this new iteration of Gwent inferior to old Gwent, in almost every aspects. I'd venture to say that even day-1 Gwent was better and had more potential than this version.

They removed (in no particular order): Reach, 1 row, CA spies, CA cards, leaders, faction passive abilities, most of graveyard interaction, most of weather effects, mill, 3 bronzes per deck, old reveal, old spies, row lock, f*** promote, demote, a good deal of interesting cards...

There is not much left to remove, uh?

Of course there is something left to remove...the players. Now CDPR tries to remove them from the game, nice idea!

 

[Archan6el]

I want to add some thoughts here. What's another bad thing about HC design. Cards are the game of hands, but u drop them to the feet. This game likes cleanness as hands, but u drop cards into the dirt. Cards like closed comfort space to hide ur plans and keep cards safe, but u play them in the open windy rainy world, where everyone sees everything. Cards like accuracy, but u made them ragged and dirty. Cards are swift, but u introduced orders and immune artifacts, which are heavy and slow.
Open world's game is chess. And u r trying to make open and figure-based chess from the card game. Leader figures are another step to the chess. It's a mistake - mixing two this essences. Cards and chess are absolutely opposite to each other. Open, boring and figure-based chess stays opposite to funny, closed and image-based cards. Whole HomeComming was a big mistake like Thronebreaker.

I fully understand that you don't like the battlefield look, dropping cards "in the dirt", especially with the 3D leader models. Leaders should be cards that can be played; this is a card game after all. This and game-slowing mechanics like Orders, Charges etc. make it feel that Gwent is not supposed to be a card game. That's a bad feeling.

While similar at first glance, the impact is quite different. The fact, that you usually can activate those abilites on your turn or your opponent's turn and the possibility of your opponent reacting to it at instant speed enables much more decision making and makes the game feel more dynamic and interactive in some way.
I don't see much upside of the order mechanic in Gwent. Often you just use them as soon as you can anyway. Gwent used to be a dynamic and fast paced game, but now orders slow down the game. The timer based effects of beta Gwent, which were activated automatically felt much better. One of the very few good changes of midwinter update was the introduction of a positioning based priority system. The abilites of cards in the front left triggered first, siege row right last. It wasn't utilized properly, because way too much happened on deploy, but it's actually a great and simple idea to give smart positioning some more meaning. Personally I think orders are HC's second biggest problem after the handlimit, which kills the game for me anyway. I'd argue, that timer and event based abilites, which don't have to be activated manually, would make the game more dynamic and more complex at the same time.

I fully agree. I also think that all these things that slow down the game, Orders, Charges, Coins, basically all the silly card and leader clicks, will kill mobile Gwent quite quickly. Playing this stuff with a mouse is already a pain. I can't imagine it being any better on a tiny mobile touch screen.

 

[Vedamir]

Since I left Gwent, I tryed to return a to make some decks, learn new cards. And what did I see? Geralt: Axii, that clearing and restoring unit! What the ***ng shit is this? Don't u really know what is Axii? How can it clear and restore? It's mind control! I just deleted this game until such things will be fixed. And this is not the only one false card. They are everywhere! Read Witcher books, play Witcher games, if don't know the lore. It's terrible! Are u addicts, who makes such cards? Do u really think, that this game design will be ok? And the game will be popular with this? It's a shame!