Homecoming Reveal

[Khreygond]

Speaking of changes I expect the round system to backfire immensely. First of all, you will once again be playing 2 rounds, since the first and the third are what matters. Play a long enough first, and you can drypass the second with little effort.

Secondly, drypassing on R1 was not an issue imo. Only decks that liked long rounds like Axemen spies and reveal should do it in the first place

 

[DMaster2]

Speaking of changes I expect the round system to backfire immensely. First of all, you will once again be playing 2 rounds, since the first and the third are what matters. Play a long enough first, and you can drypass the second with little effort.

Secondly, drypassing on R1 was not an issue imo. Only decks that liked long rounds like Axemen spies and reveal should do it in the first place

Still an improvement, at least i won't see anymore "blue coin drypass r1, oppo drypass r2" bs, both in constructed and arena (here is even worse imho).

 

[Shelinn]

Still an improvement, at least i won't see anymore "blue coin drypass r1, oppo drypass r2" bs, both in constructed and arena (here is even worse imho).

I'd say if this happens then it means that both opponents are fine with a very long round to decide the winner.

 

[DMaster2]

I'd say if this happens then it means that both opponents are fine with a very long round to decide the winner.

Sure, but i find odd to play 2 or worse 1 round in a game that is supposed to be played over 3 rounds.

 

[Khreygond]

Sure, but i find odd to play 2 or worse 1 round in a game that is supposed to be played over 3 rounds.

It's not supposed to be though. Part of the game's charm is that it can be played in 3, 2, OR 1 rounds. For example my baseline consume deck thrives in 3 medium length rounds. So do other decks I could mention, like Veterans or Calveit Reveal or Alchemy which has to play the first 2 rounds.

I like the fact that decks can play 3 rounds, other decks prefer to play 2, and others, like to play the longest round possible. The game is not supposed to be played in 3 rounds as such

 

[Foehmmr]

So I scrolled through the first half of this thread and the majority of posters is disliking the new look, main argument being: it kills the tavern vibe that was the atmosphere/concept since witcher 3.

However, I've seen nobody taking 'thronebreaker' into consideration. If a gwent card game represents exactly that, a card game, in the storymode, than you can do little more than create a story where some character goes around from tavern to tavern to play friendly games of Gwent ... Not very exiting is it? Maybe you can up the stakes by adding a story element where you have to get big money fast to pay of some crooked debt-collectors or that the winner in some multi-country military conflict will be decided by a game of Gwent and the king of each nation is looking for his Gwent champion but that just sound stupid. So the limitations on this aproach are very real.

By changing the card battles to represent real battles/skirmishes CDPR allows themselves to tell interesting and exciting stories about the many factions and inhabitants of the witcher's fictional universe. Your deck here represents your warband, clashing with monster swarms, scoiatel bands, skellige maurauders etc. Getting new cards represents new allies and soldier units that join your force.

People have forgotten that thronebreaker was one of the main selling points from all the way back when Gwent was only just announced. And a lot of players are simple here because they want more witcher and they'll take whatever new lore they can, even if it's in the form of some artwork, a taunt and a short card description. Me for example, I like Gwent, played it sporadically for a total of 150 hours over the past year, put in some 40 euro's, but I'm only here because I like the witcher so damn much. This were any other card game I wouldn't care 'cause I'm not a CCG enthousiast in general.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's hard for CDPR to cater to two types of players at the same time. They need to make a polished, professional and competitive card game for CCG regulars, who might not have even played the witcher games, because those are the people that will stick around the longest. But also give the lore fans a treat, because it would be dumb on CDPR's behalf to ignore all those millions of witcher fans, who might not care al that much about a CCG but will take anything that expands on the lore.

 

[Mineraldo]

Well...
I don't know if I will like HC, but of course I will give it a try
The only one think I do not like about its release is that I guess we won't be able to see Repelmer actually deploying the combo of his 'Uma Champion' deck...

 

[sfruzz]

I've been re-reading the Letter from Marcin Iwiński and the development team.

"As an example, we would like to introduce a preferred row for some cards that would grant them additional benefits when put on that row. Also, rows in the front and back would always grant a different buff when a unit is placed there." April 12, 2018

I understand that in a beta of a game everything is subject to change, but the fact that the front and back rows would ALWAYS grant a different buff really hyped me. This was the change that I was mostly looking for in the Homecoming Reveal video. Sadly, it looked like a change that was not implemented. The "some" cards that would grant additional benefits in a given row are really few.
Out of the 23* cards that were shown in the Homecoming Reveal, only 13% had a row related choice or strong row effect:
- Geralt: Igni
- Imlerith:Sabbath
- Iris

Plus there are a lot of cards with random ping abilities or RNG-related effects. For the new Monster Nest card, the player has no saying in which row his/her units are going to spawn. The four arachas spawn on a random row. First the cards were row-locked, than agile, now units spawn on random row? That's the sort of card I really don't understand. The community was quite vocal about the effects of randomness and how it negates strategic thinking. Correct me if i'm wrong, but people really invested in the game like Lifecoach and superJJ left due the all create RNG stuff.

*Here I also count cards like the Elven Swordmaster, whose ability was addressed in the Ask a Dev thread. There might have been more cards leaked that I'm not aware off.

By changing the card battles to represent real battles/skirmishes CDPR allows themselves to tell interesting and exciting stories about the many factions and inhabitants of the witcher's fictional universe. Your deck here represents your warband, clashing with monster swarms, scoiatel bands, skellige maurauders etc. Getting new cards represents new allies and soldier units that join your force.

That it already does. Our deck already represents our warband, clashing with monster swarms, Scoia and so on with no explicitation required. A beautiful 2D art plus a little imagination goes a long way.

The fact that the leaders currently look a little like this, doesn't help.

Spoiler

 

[DMaster2]

It's not supposed to be though. Part of the game's charm is that it can be played in 3, 2, OR 1 rounds. For example my baseline consume deck thrives in 3 medium length rounds. So do other decks I could mention, like Veterans or Calveit Reveal or Alchemy which has to play the first 2 rounds.

I like the fact that decks can play 3 rounds, other decks prefer to play 2, and others, like to play the longest round possible. The game is not supposed to be played in 3 rounds as such

I personally don't and it make being on blue coin so much worse. Another thing i'm happy it's being fixed on HC.

 

[Khreygond]

I personally don't and it make being on blue coin so much worse. Another thing i'm happy it's being fixed on HC.

Υοu don't like the fact we have engine decks, which want longer rounds than tempo decks?

 

[DMaster2]

Υοu don't like the fact we have engine decks, which want longer rounds than tempo decks?

If anything now you can't actually run engines. Right now if you play engines (unless they are called greatswords) and you get blue coin you are screwed. You are better off running tempo and point spam.

After HC, where you can't drypass and even on blue you can get value for 3-4 turns each round engines will go up in playability.

 

[Pruny]

Engine are useless since they added those damned vipers, i like the concept but having them resurected with ointments is busted and the base is to high, they kill archespores and still get +1, is atrocious.

 

[Khreygond]

If anything now you can't actually run engines. Right now if you play engines (unless they are called greatswords) and you get blue coin you are screwed. You are better off running tempo and point spam.

After HC, where you can't drypass and even on blue you can get value for 3-4 turns each round engines will go up in playability.

You totally can. Spies are still a thing, Axemen are, engine decks exist in the game, it's not like they were deleted from the game. Sure they aren't viable to reach GM with, but that's beside the point. The point is, engine decks will always need longer rounds than tempo decks. Right now the key is to let tempo decks play their tempo without committing too much from your engine, usually by playing units that aren't part of the engine (in the case of spies, usually infiltrators, nauzicaa or rot tossers, in the case of Axemen, whalers and Dimun Warships), when the opponent can still pass, and then commit your engine pieces when you've locked the opponent in a round. Getting a value of 3 - 4 turns each round is not enough, because engine units' base strength is low. Operating with current values, which are of course going to be changed, but the analogy probably won't, name one engine that can get enough value to justify its inclusion in 3 rounds. Only mangonels and Axemen can do that, and both are viable to play up to Rank 20 at least. Not to mention that a lot of the time you will spend said 3 - 4 turns setting up, instead of operating your engine (you will spend the first 2 turns setting enforcers up, and only the next 2 playing spies that trigger them, for example). Same with Kaedweni Siege Supports.

Engine are useless since they added those damned vipers, i like the concept but having them resurected with ointments is busted and the base is to high, they kill archespores and still get +1, is atrocious.

Also besides the point. That's not what I said. The point is engine decks still exist in the game. They aren't viable to reach GM sure, but they are still a thing. And as long as they are, they will always need longer rounds than tempo decks. Which is why HC is going to be a problem with the way rounds are laid out.

 

[DMaster2]

You totally can. Spies are still a thing, Axemen are, engine decks exist in the game, it's not like they were deleted from the game. Sure they aren't viable to reach GM with, but that's beside the point.

No, it's not beside the point. That's exactly my point. Currently in gwent there is only 1 engine that works, greatswords. That's it. No other engine can survive at the highest meta, because often engine decks screw you over when you get blue coin.

Then sure, at rank 15 you can pilot even kambi and win with it. But that doesn't prove much, does it?

The point is, engine decks will always need longer rounds than tempo decks. Right now the key is to let tempo decks play their tempo without committing too much from your engine, usually by playing units that aren't part of the engine (in the case of spies, usually infiltrators, nauzicaa or rot tossers, in the case of Axemen, whalers and Dimun Warships), when the opponent can still pass, and then commit your engine pieces when you've locked the opponent in a round. Getting a value of 3 - 4 turns each round is not enough, because engine units' base strength is low.

At HC you will play 16 cards, which is plenty of time each round if you plan carefully. But that's not even the major boon, the best change is the fact that now you can probe round 1. If you play an engine deck and get blue coin you aren't automatically screwed (because sure, you can drypass, but any competent opponent will bleed you to death r2. In fact i forgot the last time i've lost against axemen when i was on red).

With this change, if you get the blue coin, you can attempt at setup an engine knowing you have 3 turns to make it going, potentially allowing you to win r1 on -1 (that may had not had been possible if your opponent tempo open and pass to leave you at -2 or win on even).

Also decks are going to change, values are lower and tempo decks should be weaker. Engines will have thier part in HC.

 

[Khreygond]

No, it's not beside the point. That's exactly my point. Currently in gwent there is only 1 engine that works, greatswords. That's it. No other engine can survive at the highest meta, because often engine decks screw you over when you get blue coin.

Then sure, at rank 15 you can pilot even kambi and win with it. But that doesn't prove much, does it?


At HC you will play 16 cards, which is plenty of time each round if you plan carefully. But that's not even the major boon, the best change is the fact that now you can probe round 1. If you play an engine deck and get blue coin you aren't automatically screwed (because sure, you can drypass, but any competent opponent will bleed you to death r2. In fact i forgot the last time i've lost against axemen when i was on red).

With this change, if you get the blue coin, you can attempt at setup an engine knowing you have 3 turns to make it going, potentially allowing you to win r1 on -1 (that may had not had been possible if your opponent tempo open and pass to leave you at -2 or win on even).

Also decks are going to change, values are lower and tempo decks should be weaker. Engines will have thier part in HC.

You said you don't like that games are played over 2 or 1 rounds. I asked whether you dislike the fact engine decks are a thing, because as long as they are a thing, they will ALWAYS aim to play fewer and longer rounds. You said that now you can't run engines. As you can see, your "point", that only 1 engine deck works in gwent, does not answer my question. I asked whether you'd prefer if there was no such thing as an engine, and units with active abilities, over having them in the game. The original question was not at all about value or viability really.

The change to the hand limit may superficially seemingly allow you to play engines on blue, but there is another problem. Most engines are still slow enough to need more than 4 turns to make them out-point the opponent. Your opponent can still tempo open the first 3 turns and then pass, because if you play only one engine, you won't catch up fast enough, and if you play 2, you are wasting more time hoping to catch up faster. Put any tempo deck against any engine deck. I wager the engine deck will still be behind by turn 4 in terms of points, after equal cards have been played.

Gwent's problem with engines is not about how many turns the round is, it's more fundamental and structural. Engines like Foltest swarm have an exponential curve of power, as do Spies and Axemen. If they lock you in a round and you don't have adequate control, you are finished. Unless of course you are running an equally powerful engine that can keep them in check.

 

[Shelinn]

You said you don't like that games are played over 2 or 1 rounds. I asked whether you dislike the fact engine decks are a thing, because as long as they are a thing, they will ALWAYS aim to play fewer and longer rounds. You said that now you can't run engines. As you can see, your "point", that only 1 engine deck works in gwent, does not answer my question. I asked whether you'd prefer if there was no such thing as an engine, and units with active abilities, over having them in the game. The original question was not at all about value or viability really.

The change to the hand limit may superficially seemingly allow you to play engines on blue, but there is another problem. Most engines are still slow enough to need more than 4 turns to make them out-point the opponent. Your opponent can still tempo open the first 3 turns and then pass, because if you play only one engine, you won't catch up fast enough, and if you play 2, you are wasting more time hoping to catch up faster. Put any tempo deck against any engine deck. I wager the engine deck will still be behind by turn 4 in terms of points, after equal cards have been played.

Gwent's problem with engines is not about how many turns the round is, it's more fundamental and structural. Engines like Foltest swarm have an exponential curve of power, as do Spies and Axemen. If they lock you in a round and you don't have adequate control, you are finished. Unless of course you are running an equally powerful engine that can keep them in check.

Actually foltest swarm is a different matter altogether.
Its strength carries over between rounds.
And if your opponent does the first 3 turns now and then passes you can pick two more for 5 behind.
Then you simply drypass on the second round.

 

[Khreygond]

Actually foltest swarm is a different matter altogether.
Its strength carries over between rounds.
And if your opponent does the first 3 turns now and then passes you can pick two more for 5 behind.
Then you simply drypass on the second round.

I meant the deck with Kaedweni Siege Supports and Poor F'ing Infantry. Unless I misunderstood what you said

 

[klaymen]

Lastly, people, CALM DOWN. How helpful is it to blow it up based on what you don't know? You may be right or You may be wrong. Maybe it will be "RIP Gwent," or "Horray Gwent." We'll find out when it arrives.

Trying to be positive at all costs doesn't help either. We (the pessimists or doomsayers or whatever you may want to call us) act on what we *do* know. If CDPR decided not to bless us with more knowledge than the sorry excuse of the crumbs we got, only a fool would expect that we acted on the info we *didn't know*. The whole HC announcement looks now more like a PR speak than anything else. If the devs were really open about their intentions and plans and wanted the community to be involved in the discussion, then the whole thing would be much better accepted, or people who decided that they don't like the way the devs want to go would just move on. Instead we have atreatment in the form of "we tell you what we feel you need to know".

Blizzard for example has at least the decency to explain their actions in the patch notes. Minor changes aren't explained (like in Heroes of the Storm a simple change of an ability's damage from, say, 325 to 322), but large changes have added reasoning in a form of a paragraph or two why they did it. This is what CDPR needs to friggin' learn. "We gonna do dis and it be awsum, believe us" is IMO not the way to go. *cough* midwinter fiasco *cough*

You're fully welcome to disagree. And for the record, "if you don't like it move on.", isn't an elegant sales pitch.

Indeed. *cough* Battlefield V's "if you don't like it, then don't buy it" policy leading to miserable preorder predictions (85% less than CoD:BO4) *cough*

 

[DMaster2]

You said you don't like that games are played over 2 or 1 rounds. I asked whether you dislike the fact engine decks are a thing, because as long as they are a thing, they will ALWAYS aim to play fewer and longer rounds. You said that now you can't run engines. As you can see, your "point", that only 1 engine deck works in gwent, does not answer my question. I asked whether you'd prefer if there was no such thing as an engine, and units with active abilities, over having them in the game. The original question was not at all about value or viability really.

The change to the hand limit may superficially seemingly allow you to play engines on blue, but there is another problem. Most engines are still slow enough to need more than 4 turns to make them out-point the opponent. Your opponent can still tempo open the first 3 turns and then pass, because if you play only one engine, you won't catch up fast enough, and if you play 2, you are wasting more time hoping to catch up faster. Put any tempo deck against any engine deck. I wager the engine deck will still be behind by turn 4 in terms of points, after equal cards have been played.

Gwent's problem with engines is not about how many turns the round is, it's more fundamental and structural. Engines like Foltest swarm have an exponential curve of power, as do Spies and Axemen. If they lock you in a round and you don't have adequate control, you are finished. Unless of course you are running an equally powerful engine that can keep them in check.

My preference is irrelevant. What matters is the balance of the metagame, and yes engines are underrappresented in the current meta.

Btw if you wish to know so badly, i don't like playing engine decks, i prefer midrange/controllish ones.

Lastly, CURRENTLY engines are still too slow. You forgot one thing, current gwent is miles different from HC gwent. As you saw from the HC video, numbers are smaller now so engine can work better.

 

[BornBoring]

Drypassing is just the symptom of another problem; to be more precise it's the disadvantage of going first (in any round). Introducing a hand size limit is one of the worst possible solutions I can think of to solve drypassing.
Btw the reduction of carryover and less possibilites of gaining card advantage are also reasons why drypassing is much more common now than it was during CB (yes I know, both concepts have always been problematic, but it's still worth thinking about whether there would have been ways to make it work or not. Very asymetrical distribution of carryover among factions were definitely not the right approach (looking at old dwarves)).