Except you have more choices now that rows matter.
They needed to change milling from the start so new players could not mill ones whole collection to build ip dwarves then grind to grandmaster in their first season. Milling needed to be only able to mill once you have 4 of a bronze or duplicate silver or gold.
To all those saying the game should have a tavern feel, I'd like to remind you of this very first "key pillar" in the Homecoming letter:
That of course doesn't mean you have to like the new looks (of which we've only seen one out of five), but it shouldn't have come as a huge surprise (except if you weren't around/following the news back in April).
That of course doesn't mean you have to like the new looks (of which we've only seen one out of five), but it shouldn't have come as a huge surprise (except if you weren't around/following the news back in April).
Well not saying anything that hasn't been said, but this new thing isn't Gwent. I thought the point was taking the game you play in The Witcher and making a standalone game with it? They're not even remotely similar.
3 rows is fine, no idea why they messed with that. The problem for me was three bronzes, poor card thinking (VW, Nekker, GS), a bad mulligan mechanic and an unfair draw system (as in, you get the better draw you win). They should have tweaked the way it worked; limit special cards, have them selected from outside the core deck and possibly even remove support cards entirely so you don't end up with bricks (harpy, roach, aelerinn, etc.).
Anyway, everyone's got an opinion, I'll still play Homecoming but it ain't Gwent.
3 rows is fine, no idea why they messed with that. The problem for me was three bronzes, poor card thinking (VW, Nekker, GS), a bad mulligan mechanic and an unfair draw system (as in, you get the better draw you win). They should have tweaked the way it worked; limit special cards, have them selected from outside the core deck and possibly even remove support cards entirely so you don't end up with bricks (harpy, roach, aelerinn, etc.).
Anyway, everyone's got an opinion, I'll still play Homecoming but it ain't Gwent.
This isnt an answer. I know the row-matter-thing is more deep, but i asked for something different. You always mix critic for 2 rows with "but they matter now", which nobody addresses in his critic. Meaning of rows and number of it are two different things.
It's better to have a good system for two rows than a bad system for three. Some users seems to think that it's a binary choice and defend the two rows system based on that. Ironically, they are right, but for the wrong reasons. Having only two rows makes it easier to balance everything properly. However, it doesn't automatically makes it better, just like two rows isn't automatically worse. Two rows can be more meaningful than three, or the other way around. It all depends on the implementation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I rather have a good CCG that isn't Gwent, than a bad CCG that is Gwent. The game originally wasn't meant to be an online CCG and it shows. Would it have been possible to transform Gwent into an actual enjoyable and entertaining CCG? In the past two years every major patch had balancing issues. Sure, everyone fondly remembers the Gwent feeling but quickly forgets things like gold immunity with Henselt's Gold Rush or ST Spell Control. Also, stuff like the Neophyte Army or Monster Weather, before the nerf.
The Gwent that was cannot be a competitive online CCG with multiple expansions.
You thing any of these were a thing nowadays? I dont think so, and furthermore these issues were patchable. As you can tweak each leader ability, you dont have to remove them entirely.
Easier for developer in short terms yes. But for a long run you need some more screws you can adjust. I am aware of regulary card banns in the future cause of balancing reason, caused by not balancable cards. It's like amputating a finger to make a better glove. I dont think this will be preferable for the future.
You made the claim there are fewer choices when in reality there are more choices.
He doesn't say there will be fewer meaningful decisions regarding where you play your units than before HC, but that three rows generally allow more choices than two. Ranged based effects and and row bonus concepts have been mentioned before they announced HC, so we haven't seen much so far that wouldn't have been possible with 3 rows.
They already mentioned cutting a row, because of visual reasons, in the HC letter, which give rises to a suspicion that they never really tried to make three rows work during the HC development process, but focused on making a 2 row gwent early on (for the wrong reasons).
Last edited:
The new mulligan system looks very cool and so do the two rows and changes to cards. However I don't really think you should change the looks of the game to a "battlefield". I think today's design is the greatest so far - it has some pleasant and hearthly feeling with this tavern theme. Also it's not so simple yet ornamental. These 3D thing? I don't know... sorry but for me it looks too...crappy. Too much thing at the same time. The battlefield is too crowded with completely unnecessary things. Also the gray battlefield is not beautiful. Gwent supposed to be a "table" card game (as it is so far) not a battlefield.
I think the best solution would be to let the player decide which theme he wants to play with - the battlefield or the tavern - if it's possible, so it should be optional not compulsory so the player base would remain the same.
I think the best solution would be to let the player decide which theme he wants to play with - the battlefield or the tavern - if it's possible, so it should be optional not compulsory so the player base would remain the same.
This honestly makes me incredibly sad. Balance is one thing, but changing one product into a completely new one is another entirely. Removing an entire rarity, removing an entire Row, changing the way leaders work fundamentally, making it look unappealing.
I loved the Tavern board feel, and that the cards actually looked like cards, the new play area, looks like an actual battlefield not a place you would be playing Gwent if you were actually in the witcher universe. It looks worn down and disgusting.
Gwent was a lighthearted game in the Witcher universe intended for people to pass time in a shitty world where people are killed at every turn. If I wanted to play a game that looked exactly like the Witcher I would just go replay the Witcher instead. This doesn't look like a game it looks the exact environment people in the Witcher universe play Gwent to AVOID
I really hope you reconsider these changes and try your best to maintain the integrity of the fun game you originally created or I like others have suggested will seek to refund my purchases because this is not the product I paid for.
I loved the Tavern board feel, and that the cards actually looked like cards, the new play area, looks like an actual battlefield not a place you would be playing Gwent if you were actually in the witcher universe. It looks worn down and disgusting.
Gwent was a lighthearted game in the Witcher universe intended for people to pass time in a shitty world where people are killed at every turn. If I wanted to play a game that looked exactly like the Witcher I would just go replay the Witcher instead. This doesn't look like a game it looks the exact environment people in the Witcher universe play Gwent to AVOID
I really hope you reconsider these changes and try your best to maintain the integrity of the fun game you originally created or I like others have suggested will seek to refund my purchases because this is not the product I paid for.
He said "fewer choices" which disregards that we are also getting more choices. I'm not making an argument on whether or not we could have kept 3 rows or if that could have been great. My point is that we are not losing choices. We are gaining them.
Rows right now have almost no meaning. Besides Geralt: Igni and weather there is no row based mechanic currently playing a big part in the meta.
Saying that removing one is somehow limiting your choices is a big stretch.
Of course having 3 rows with heavy impact would offer more choices that having 2 rows with heavy impact. But at the same time 2 rows with heavy impact will offer a lot more choices than 3 rows with barely any impact at all.
I personally want to see the new meta before I offer my opinion.
The problem with that, however, is that it has been 5 months already and we have absolutely no gameplay footage. I wouldn't be surprised if they had wasted those 5 months by designing and coding that crappy board and are just now getting into actually building and balancing the cards.
Saying that removing one is somehow limiting your choices is a big stretch.
Of course having 3 rows with heavy impact would offer more choices that having 2 rows with heavy impact. But at the same time 2 rows with heavy impact will offer a lot more choices than 3 rows with barely any impact at all.
I personally want to see the new meta before I offer my opinion.
The problem with that, however, is that it has been 5 months already and we have absolutely no gameplay footage. I wouldn't be surprised if they had wasted those 5 months by designing and coding that crappy board and are just now getting into actually building and balancing the cards.
I doubt that. That should be completly different parts of the development team.
Well the new gwent 2.0 is more like 'chess for dummies'. Change everything in the game, but keep the name. Wow, great idea!
I think Gwent 2.0 will loose all the original players' base from w3 gwint. Because the new setting is everything, but the name.
I don't like the new style, the reduced rows etc... It's so far away from the original idea of gwint /gwent 1.0, so that i'm asking, why CDPR are you keeping the name GWENT?
If Chess would have changed like the way Gwint / Gwent 1.0 is currently developed, the game Chess would never be called Chess anymore! CDPR's vision of homecoming is a nightmare, a distorted caricature because Gwint / Gwent 1.0 was the home.
Do you understand the point?
I think Gwent 2.0 will loose all the original players' base from w3 gwint. Because the new setting is everything, but the name.
I don't like the new style, the reduced rows etc... It's so far away from the original idea of gwint /gwent 1.0, so that i'm asking, why CDPR are you keeping the name GWENT?
If Chess would have changed like the way Gwint / Gwent 1.0 is currently developed, the game Chess would never be called Chess anymore! CDPR's vision of homecoming is a nightmare, a distorted caricature because Gwint / Gwent 1.0 was the home.
Do you understand the point?
I never doubt that. Some missinterpreted intentional i guess.
Yes i did and I said "3 rows have less then 2" too. You mix my words with something you (want to) believe i said.
Why would I respond to "two rows are less than three?" That isn't debatable. Your claim was that going to fewer rows makes the game less strategic which I disagree with because they are not only removing a row. They are going to two rows and adding in a lot of mechanics that make the game more strategic.