Homecoming Reveal

[Maerd]

My overall reaction is mildly positive.

CONs:
- Leaders on the board are looking way too childish. It's like playing chess where all your pieces are represented by pokemons instead of traditional look. I'd like to have them as cards or at least to have an option to show them as cards.
- The 3D perspective board is not functional and provides nothing but distraction while playing.
- The curved hand a la Hearthstone is bullshit and not convenient. I want to see my cards clearly.

PROs:

- Row placement is going to matter again.
- Different number of mulligans depending on a leader looks like an interesting feature.
- Increased deck building complexity due to value based composition of decks... at least in theory, let's see how it will be in practice.

Concerns:

- Stillborn cards. Gwent had a lot of dead cards that had no place in any deck. I hope this problem will be solved.
- Card base values are too low to be easily balanced between each other.
- Too many hit a random unit effects in the revealed cards. I would prefer to have no randomness in this matter.
- Still no calculated difference of the score. There are usually way more things to think about besides subtracting the scores yourself.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Well.... I have to say that the reveal is somewhat underwhelming. Here's what I think though:

• 3D Leaders are... okay I guess? I mean, do we really have a choice lol? I like that they follow your cursor but how will that work on console? They'll just jump around or will they be static?
• The board is not to my liking... I wish it was just an old table or something like that.
• I like that cards now have multiple abilities, that's really cool. Something I've always asked for.
• I don't like that the numbers on the right of the screen don't line up with the rows. I have a mild OCD so.
• Doing multiple things during turns (triggering abilities and whatnot) is REALLY COOL. That adds so much to the game.
  
  Overall, I just think Project Homecoming is kind of ugly. I really, really hope the gameplay makes up for it though. Also, please don't mess up the launch of it, a lot of us have been waiting for this for over almost a whole year. I don't know why you're calling this "Homecoming" if it's nothing like the old Gwent. I don't mean to sound rude but like, just let it be it's own thing, you know? I'm sure the gameplay will be much more interesting than the current Gwent but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned for the future of this game. I hope things turn out okay. Remember that you will never please everybody though so don't try to change your vision. Stick with something and go for it.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[appoxa]

1) If you wanted a game with no variance, card games are an ill pick. You are free to choose whatever game you prefer, that doesn't change the fact that gwent NEEDS to have less consistency.

I dont feel like Gwent havnt variance. Its fine to me. Dont expect any worse with the update.

How do you think they could print more bronze that see play but aren't powercreep to the current ones? They can't, simple as that.

They can. And I don't find it hard to imagine anything.

All you have to do is create special playing styles. Bronze cards that have synergies with others, so it is less to use the 0815 standard cover lists, but to build something new from the new one. That does not have to be stronger and it must not be much weaker, but it should be different. And that's doable. Just a question of creativity. During the conversions so far, I think it's here.

 

[DMaster2]

They can. And I don't find it hard to imagine anything.

All you have to do is create special playing styles. Bronze cards that have synergies with others, so it is less to use the 0815 standard cover lists, but to build something new from the new one. That does not have to be stronger and it must not be much weaker, but it should be different. And that's doable. Just a question of creativity. During the conversions so far, I think it's here.

Again, they have to introduce hundred of bronzes each year. With the current gwent, that would mean most of them would be basically unplayable or powercreep, with no in-between.

 

[sfruzz]

With the current gwent, that would mean most of them would be basically unplayable or powercreep, with no in-between.

Can you tell us the reasoning behind your statement? And why by moving to the Homecoming concept this problem is going to be solved?

 

[4RM3D]

Can you tell us the reasoning behind your statement? And why by moving to the Homecoming concept this problem is going to be solved?

Gwent does not have a mana cost system to compensate for better cards. This means that all cards in the same tier need to have the same average return value, which limits the design space a lot. With the provision system, cards can actually be weaker and cost less provisions to compensate for that. This not only makes balancing easier, but also makes it easier to release new cards because they do not have to have the same return value as the old ones. Instead, the devs can just adjust the provision costs.

 

[devivre]

Maybe if they can have the option to either or.... that would settle A LOT with the community

That‘s an interesting suggestion. I wouldn‘t mind having that option, although the new board is definitely going to be my first choice

 

[appoxa]

Gwent does not have a mana cost system to compensate for better cards. This means that all cards in the same tier need to have the same average return value, which limits the design space a lot.

I think the opposite is true. Although mana costs allow for different strengths, their strength must always correspond to the mana costs. In the end, others are no less "limited". On the other hand, the resource mana is more difficult to balance, which in turn leads to unsatisfactory play and unwanted power creeps. Here Gwent can score exactly: Since the target value is known and does not change, values are calculable. So it's much easier to go wide without worrying about endangering the balancing.

With the provision system, cards can actually be weaker and cost less provisions to compensate for that. This not only makes balancing easier, but also makes it easier to release new cards because they do not have to have the same return value as the old ones.

I don't see it that way, as I said. Especially when effects come into play that manipulate the resource mana. Gwent has it simple: A card that is slightly too strong can be reduced by one stat point. Decreasing or increasing the cost of mana by 1 has a massive impact on playability. By changing the mana you also have to look at the stats and everything again.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Gwent does not have a mana cost system to compensate for better cards. This means that all cards in the same tier need to have the same average return value, which limits the design space a lot. With the provision system, cards can actually be weaker and cost less provisions to compensate for that. This not only makes balancing easier, but also makes it easier to release new cards because they do not have to have the same return value as the old ones. Instead, the devs can just adjust the provision costs.

I am not sure if this will work. I like the standard idea of mana costs (not here), because it is simple and you can do a lot with it. But the mana cost are in game, in Deck. Gwent-Decks dont profit from many small cards or few stron strong cards, thats not how the game works. You dont have a early, mid and endgame, you normally have a fix gameend. So if you have a fix point line, you cannot extent with your cards, you will just fill it.
Lets say we have 100 supply-points. Our Deck should be limited to 30 cards. So you will take the cards you want and fill up with the rest. You cant droop a 5-Supply-Card for 5 1-supply-cards, unless you want to pump you deck up unnecessarily.
I have my doubts there but still i like the basic idea.

 

[4RM3D]

@appoxa

Provisions are trickier to balance than mana cost, but it's still the closest thing Gwent can get in terms of variance. You said that cards must still be balanced for their mana costs. This still means that you can have cards of different strengths, which allows for more flexibility, like I have said.

@Fimbulthrym

Deck building becomes more interesting because you really have to think which cards you are going to include. More high power cards also means more low power cards. While Gwent does not have traditional phases (early, mid, end), it does get something similar in Homecoming. With the provision costs, you might be inclined to not commit too much during the first round. Furthermore, because Gwent has abilities that can be triggered manually, ordering becomes more important and the coin flip less so. You could almost say that the first round equals the early game, the 2nd round mid and the last round the end game.

In any case, the game has definitely become more complex in Homecoming.

 

[DMaster2]

Can you tell us the reasoning behind your statement? And why by moving to the Homecoming concept this problem is going to be solved?

It's simple actually.

As we saw during midwinter, it's quite hard to introduce new playable bronzes in the current system. In fact you can't deny the huge spike in power of most of the bronzes, which now reach 12-13 value for "playable" bronzes. That can only get worse as more expansions comes. They either keep increasing bronze value, or they just release cards that don't see play.

Even the objection on creating new "archetypes" is null and void. Yugioh teach that very well, spamming archetypes don't prevent powercreep and most of them ends up being unplayed or forgotten quickly. We even saw this in gwent, with the cursed archetype never being playable and all the bronzes that support it ended up wasted. The only bronze that saw play, guess what, is a bronze tutor for tbolt potions and azul's thunders.

Now picture this. As a gwent's developer you have to ensure the game can release multiple (at least 2) expansions per year, each year, otherwise the game ends up being stale quickly.

And you have to make sure the expansions are actually worth it, otherwise people will simply skip them or craft the few useful cards and move on (for example this happened in hearthstone with the expansion The Grand Tournament, which lead them to the decision of making rotations to control powercreep.
And in gwent it's not easy, due to the hyperefficient decks many cards that are conditional are often completly ignored in favor of flat points. The only engine deck in the meta works because you have 8 revive tools and your opponent can't control them all.

So yeah, but what i'm saying is like an impossible task for a design team. Current gwent doesn't have the tools to ensure the game an healthy longevity.

And this is why we are seeing these changes for homecoming.

Their objective is clear:

1) Reduce the consistency of the decks
2) Reduce the power of the bronzes
3) Make sure an healthy number of cards will be able to see play

All of them are related to each other. Reducing the consistency is key to make sure the game is more varied. Both the 2 bronze limit and the 30 cards decks are the tools to achieve this (which is much more healthy than printing more create rng cards). That doesn't mean it's going to be "hs rngfiesta" like many doomsayers are blatering about. According to the current infos, you are looking to draw 19 out of 30 cards and you will mulligan up to 5-7 cards depending on the leader. This excluding any form of tutoring and drawing (both should be less frequent hopefully).


The "army points system" is also another tool that will help them achieve their objective. Now that you have a limit on how strong your deck can be, you now may prefer a weaker bronze(s) to ensure you can use a stronger gold(s). Also, this will help devs on the balancing side.

A deck needs a nerf? Let's take greatswords as an example (not that i'm claiming they need a nerf, just using a popular deck to make my point).

You want to nerf the deck, now on top of the usual point nerf/effect nerf you have another tool. You can for example increase Greatswords' army cost. This will force you to lower the quality of your deck in order to keep using 3 greatswords in your deck but at the same time you aren't destroying an interesting card and mechanic by making them unplayable or more "boring". And most importantly you don't nerf other key cards (restore, captains, freyas, longships, etc...) that may comes in handy in other interesting SK decks.

Last, with both the new army point system and 2x bronze cap (along with 30 cards) the number of bronze cards that see play and will see play will definitely increase, allowing them more room to work with.

 

[appoxa]

This still means that you can have cards of different strengths, which allows for more flexibility, like I have said.

I think there's some confusion here. Being able to make a card stronger does not mean more flexibility, it just means what is said: It will then be stronger. < On the basis of its mana cost.
But that doesn't make the game more versatile.
Here the flexibility to build different strong cards is confused with the flexibility to develop different features / playing styles on cards. But these are two different things. You can create a special card at the same cost. Only that you can measure its strength more easily.

Post automatically merged: Sep 5, 2018

As we saw during midwinter, it's quite hard to introduce new playable bronzes in the current system. In fact you can't deny the huge spike in power of most of the bronzes, which now reach 12-13 value for "playable" bronzes. That can only get worse as more expansions comes. They either keep increasing bronze value, or they just release cards that don't see play.

But that's exactly what the problem is: the cards are made stronger. That's why they are played, not the alternatives that can't keep up. Exactly this process must not take place.
It is clear that then various other cards will not be played.

 

[4RM3D]

@appoxa

More flexibility for the devs to create new cards and more variance in the games because of it. They are two different things, but they are related to each other. Having provision costs gives more weight to your (deck building) decisions, which is an improvement. Of all the changes, that's actually the one I am most excited for.

 

[Gyurim]

I dont think my comment is worth here anything but i would like to voice my opinion for the slight chance that someone is listening to what the community wants. So here are the things that i like and the ones i don't.

The very negative:
- The isometric board.
- The rounded hand
- 3D leaders
We were told that they are trying to make the art shine more. I don't know how this is achieved when in your hand half of the card is covered by another card and the cards on the board are distorted in an isometric view. Although the board was transformed to a battlefield as promised and i do like the looks, its distracting. Gwent is a card game that you played in taverns against merchants and innkeepers not like chess or Heroes of might and magic. I don't mind the looks of the 3D leaders and i do like the idea that they interact with each other but then again its not authentic .. Gwent.. card game.. etc.. The leaders themselves have some abilities? Or will have only passives (like initiative and number of mulligans) and you cannot play them?
Also car rarity/ Golds could be more distinguished.

The Positive:
- the look of cards and board are not so cartoon-ish
- visual effects are very nice
- i like the reach mechanic

then again we didnt see a lot and with time i can get used to things. Most i care about that they will get the balance right, that there will a lot of interesting archetypes, that the cards and their abilities will be tied in someway to the books and games and lore. I also hope that CDPR will listen to the community and also that the community will be reasonable and not riot with torches and pitchforks at the gates of CDPR.

 

[appoxa]

More flexibility for the devs to create new cards and more variance in the games because of it. They are two different things, but they are related to each other. Having provision costs gives more weight to your (deck building) decisions, which is an improvement. Of all the changes, that's actually the one I am most excited for.

From my point of view, you only speak of mana costs as such as a design tool. Mana costs in themselves don't bring more variance into play, but are just another balancing aspect.
For example, a card gets a special ability: "Resets the strength of all opponents." You can now design this card at any mana level. Level 1: You lose 10 life points at the same time, Level 2: You lose 7 life points at the same time, Level 10: You get the change of the card strength as life points at the same time.
The basic idea of the card is always the same, the mana determines the earliest possible playability and the associated total strength. A lot of effort is needed to achieve such balances. CD can save this effort to a large extent. Of course they also have to balance, but only on one level. And the effect which the variance brings is still there.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

 

[sfruzz]

The "army points system" is also another tool that will help them achieve their objective. Now that you have a limit on how strong your deck can be, you now may prefer a weaker bronze(s) to ensure you can use a stronger gold(s). Also, this will help devs on the balancing side.

Gwent does not have a mana cost system to compensate for better cards. This means that all cards in the same tier need to have the same average return value, which limits the design space a lot. With the provision system, cards can actually be weaker and cost less provisions to compensate for that.

That is a change that I like. In fact in the short footage they've shown, I was expecting to see printed on the card its supply cost. Or maybe they can tie it to the rarity, but I think they have to specify the provision cost in a clear way. Anyway, the provisions cost could have been applied directly to the existing cardpool without need to further dramatic changes.

I remain convinced that the 2 bronze limit is a poor choice. In fact it will increase the point slap, not put a limit to it. If I'm not able to consistently fish for engine / combo cards, the only alternative is to play "value" cards.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I think there's some confusion here. Being able to make a card stronger does not mean more flexibility,.

That isn't flexibility. I mean if they can't do that in the current Gwent but they CAN do it in homecoming then isn't that being more flexible by definition?

 

[appoxa]

That isn't flexibility. I mean if they can't do that in the current Gwent but they CAN do it in homecoming then isn't that being more flexible by definition?

I don't see any difference between before (Mindwinter) and after (Homecoming). In both cases the variance of cards can be extended, in both cases powercreeps can be introduced. However, I believe that changing the basic conditions, for example the number of rows, has an influence on the balancing. Sometimes to their advantage (easier) sometimes to their disadvantage (harder).

I think even with three rows you could have designed simple keywords that have positional advantages and disadvantages. For example, "melee", "ranged", "siege" as keywords.

I therefore assume that the decision on two rows was made primarily for graphical reasons. But that doesn't mean that the balancing has to get worse.

But to emphasize it again: To give a card now three stat points more because it costs one mana more is not a greater variety in design for me. And I'm glad that Gwent doesn't do that. Because on this basis a much better balancing is possible. Just because you can say: The target value of bronze is 12. If a bronze card can exceed this value in exceptional cases, it normally has to score fewer points. If it has special effects besides the stats, the stats also have to be smaller. And because these circumstances are quite clearly definable, you can also create much better variety.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

 

[4RM3D]

I don't see any difference between before (Mindwinter) and after (Homecoming). In both cases the variance of cards can be extended, in both cases powercreeps can be introduced.

The variance can be extended, but the average value cannot. The baseline for most bronzes are the same now. Yes, you can introduce a new bronze that randomly buffs itself between 1 and 19 points. This creates a greater variance, but it keeps the same baseline of 10 power on average. What Homecoming brings are cards with different baselines in order to create more variety of effects that do not need to adhere to the baseline. This does not only give the devs more design space, but also gives users more ways to build a deck.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

What Homecoming brings are cards with different baselines in order to create more variety of effects that do not need to adhere to the baseline

If you have average points of 10 and make a card with 12 instead, why would i even use the 10? Even if you tierlisted it with supply costs, it would be simple math to find the maximum.