I worry about the game's ability to keep players over the long-term.

[Fillory]

I worry about the game's ability to keep players over the long-term.

I understand that this is the beta, that we're still fairly early into it, and that more will come for both the beta and the full release of the game. Even so, I'm already seeing potential problems.

Once your ability to gather new cards pretty much hits a wall (most or all bronze cards acquired, meaning all that's left to gather are rare/expensive silver and gold cards), your ability to grow as a player also hits a wall. When your ability to grow as a player hits a wall, boredom starts to set in. Experimenting with other decks/builds is an option, but that also has limits that eventually result in the exact same problem and eventually the wall can't really be breached anymore. In the beta, this is exacerbated by the fact that many players seem to have started experiencing the same issue at about the same time.

At least half of the players I come across seem to be using Monster decks and less than 10% seem to be using Scoia'tael. More and more players seem to be focusing on just one or two builds for each type of deck, too (Monsters using the gold opening tactic and weather, NR players moving away from Adrenaline Rush + promotion and more towards resurrection chains, Skellige players focusing on resurrection chains, etc.). These aren't guesses or exaggerations, I even logged it and mentioned it in a separate thread on here. That same log is still in the process of growing and the problem is just getting worse with each passing day.

For each build, it also seems like players on focusing on almost the entirely same set of cards while ignoring everything else. Monster decks, for example? I rarely see a deck that doesn't contain Woodland Spirit and Ciri.

Even with potential balancing and other game modes being added in the future, I'm not sure how hitting a wall is going to be avoidable. That's going to chase bored players away from the game in droves and in-game payment options for something like kegs can only make up for it for so long. Anyone else noticing any of this and/or having the same worry?

 

[Rawls]

As you said, this is only the beta. Keep in mind there will be story mode campaigns and likely new cards in the future.

Also, I rarely see monster decks with Ciri. Carathir, Woodland Spirit, Avallach, and original Geralt are the ones I see the most.

 

[bre3zer]

I understand that this is the beta, that we're still fairly early into it, and that more will come for both the beta and the full release of the game. Even so, I'm already seeing potential problems.

Once you ability to gather new cards pretty much hits a wall (most or all bronze cards acquired, meaning all that's left to gather are silver and gold cards), your ability to grow as a player also hits a wall. When your ability to grow as a player hits a wall, boredom starts to set in. Experimenting with other decks/builds is an option, but that also has limits that eventually result in the exact same problem. This is exacerbated by the fact that many players seem to have started experiencing the same issue at about the same time.

At least half of the players I come across seem to be using Monster decks and less than 10% seem to be using Scoia'tael. More and more players also seem to be focusing on just one or two builds for each type of deck, too (Monsters using the gold opening tactic and weather, NR players moving away from Adrenaline Rush + promotion and more towards resurrection chains, Skellige players focusing on resurrection chains, etc.). These aren't guesses or exaggerations, I even logged it and mentioned it in a separate thread on here. That same log is still in the process of growing and the problem is just getting worse with each passing day.

For each build, it also seems like players on focusing on almost the entirely same set of cards while ignoring everything else. Monster decks, for example? I rarely see a deck that doesn't contain Woodland Spirit and Ciri.

Even with potential balancing and other game modes being added in the future, I'm not sure how hitting a wall is going to be avoidable. Anyone else noticing any of this and/or having the same worry?

The issue that you are talking about, is more or less always avoided, by extra content, new cards, extension, balancing etc.

I have spend near 200h in the game. I Have 5 decents decks. And still a good 7 that i really wish to play and test(for wich i'm missing cards.). I don't really see the wall from where i'm tbh.

Maybe what is worrying you, is that you didn't find your goal in the game ? I personally know mine.

Collecting cards, playing a lot of decks, and be ready when ranked is introduce, and compete in this mode.

And for all i know, all games have a this wall. I wonder what make you bring it up especially for Gwent ?

 

[luvCiriTrissYen]

OP if you herd of Magic the gathering look it up. It is one of the most if not the top CCG on the planet .

If CDPR follows them they w ill be very successful. Collecting cards in ccgs is very expensive the fact I believe a lot of people are finding out . The whole concept behind MTG success is a few times a year they bring out new cards and rotate out older ones so you have to continuously buy new cards in order to play in what they call "standard" tournaments,

That keeps everything fresh but you end up spending a few 100$ a year to keep up.

 

[Fillory]

OP if you herd of Magic the gathering look it up. It is one of the most if not the top CCG on the planet .

If CDPR follows them they w ill be very successful. Collecting cards in ccgs is very expensive the fact I believe a lot of people are finding out . The whole concept behind MTG success is a few times a year they bring out new cards and rotate out older ones so you have to continuously buy new cards in order to play in what they call "standard" tournaments,

That keeps everything fresh but you end up spending a few 100$ a year to keep up.

There are two big differences here:
- MTG is a physical game, this one is digital. A lot of people excuse stuff like that with physical card games because the cards have value. Some aren't worth much, but others can be worth quite a bit and that just becomes more true as time goes on. A digital game, though? I'd be very surprised if the same thing could be replicated. I'd honestly be surprised if it were even attempted.
- Most people playing an online game aren't going to spend several hundred dollars on it per year. There will always be a minority of people willing to do it, but a game can only sustain itself that way for so long.

 

[Fillory]

The issue that you are talking about, is more or less always avoided, by extra content, new cards, extension, balancing etc.

I have spend near 200h in the game. I Have 5 decents decks. And still a good 7 that i really wish to play and test(for wich i'm missing cards.). I don't really see the wall from where i'm tbh.

Maybe what is worrying you, is that you didn't find your goal in the game ? I personally know mine.

Collecting cards, playing a lot of decks, and be ready when ranked is introduce, and compete in this mode.

And for all i know, all games have a this wall. I wonder what make you bring it up especially for Gwent ?

I bring it up because, as I said, it worries me. I'm not sure what you mean by "especially for Gwent".

200 hours in a game that's been out for less than a month? Five decent decks? You do realize that that puts you in the minority, right? I don't mean this in an insulting way, an offensive way, etc., but that's just unrealistic for most people no matter how much they like the game.

I do have a goal in-game, but between the game's daily reward limit and the fact that Xbox players can only buy kegs with ores... yeah, I can't do much as far as new cards and deck experimentation is concerned.

 

[Fillory]

As you said, this is only the beta. Keep in mind there will be story mode campaigns and likely new cards in the future.

Also, I rarely see monster decks with Ciri. Carathir, Woodland Spirit, Avallach, and original Geralt are the ones I see the most.

The most common opening I see is Eredin + Geralt. Second most common is a toss-up between Eredin + Ciri or Geralt + Ciri.

Woodland Spirit is probably the most common gold card I see other than the stuff that came with the deck (Eredin and Geralt). Ciri is a close second. Caranthir isn't quite as common as the others I've mentioned, but it's getting there since so many Monster players seem to be focusing on weather. Seeing it more and more now.

I've only seen Avallach three or so times between my first day of the Beta and now. It's just an all-around bad card imo (has the same "draw two cards" effect as Last Wish, but with the drawbacks that it takes up a gold slot, moves to your opponent's side of the field, AND allows your opponent to draw a card).

 

[luvCiriTrissYen]

There are two big differences here:
- MTG is a physical game, this one is digital. A lot of people excuse stuff like that with physical card games because the cards have value. Some aren't worth much, but others can be worth quite a bit and that just becomes more true as time goes on. A digital game, though? I'd be very surprised if the same thing could be replicated. I'd honestly be surprised if it were even attempted.
- Most people playing an online game aren't going to spend several hundred dollars on it per year. There will always be a minority of people willing to do it, but a game can only sustain itself that way for so long.

A digital version has exsisted for over a decade now decade now Magic the Gathering Online came out in 2002 . I wont put a link here but if you look up MTG online . They have a very successful online version to . They are not anywhere near as generous ad CDPR Not only do you ahve to "start over" to build you "online collection" again you have to pay money in order to enter tourneys.

So what they have done is sell you the same game 2 x and make 2x on everyone that plays both. Since every time they bring out an expansion if you play both you have to buy both the physical and digital cards.

 

[Fillory]

A digital version has exsisted for over a decade now decade now Magic the Gathering Online came out in 2002 . I wont put a link here but if you look up MTG online . They have a very successful online version to . They are not anywhere near as generous ad CDPR Not only do you ahve to "start over" to build you "online collection" again you have to pay money in order to enter tourneys.

So what they have done is sell you the same game 2 x and make 2x on everyone that plays both. Since every time they bring out an expansion if you play both you have to buy both the physical and digital cards.

Sounds like a rip-off to me, but I'm not one to tell other people how they should/shouldn't spend their own money.

I wasn't aware of the digital version, which shows you just how little I've kept up with card games since I was a kid. I still know a handful of people playing MTG, but as far as I'm aware they only bother with the physical stuff.

 

[Fillory]

In light of some of what others have said, I figure I may as well amend what I originally said slightly: I worry about the game's ability to keep the AVERAGE gamer over the long-term.

Addicts of online games, addicts of card games, people with more time and/or money than they know what to do with, etc. (basically just hardcore gamers in general)? The game may work for them just fine. I've no doubt the game will even be highly profitable. For the Average Joe, though? I see some very real limits to what the game has to offer them and I'm not sure that there's much (if anything) that can be done to rectify that.

 

[Cybershot]

I came to the forum with the same topic but a slightly different angle. Your ability to build new cards depends on getting scraps and <GG>. Now I am coming across a considerable number of players who will not give <GG> when they lose, abort the game or hit "sudden" connectivity issues.
For new players winning a match, this will withhold their incentive to pay and may long term affect the popularity if bad behaviour is not sanctioned by the game.
There should be a guaranteed minimum bounty the winner makes, <GG> or not. Bad behaving losers should be punished by losing the equivalent amount.

 

[devivre]

For now I don't see that much of an issue since there will be new cards, new factions and singleplayer modes. If after the official release there's new content on a regular basis (let's say for example all 2-3 months) it should be fine I guess. I think for the "average joe" a lot will depend on an improved matchmaking mode and/or the possible to play matches with a reduced gold/silver card limit.

 

[bre3zer]

I bring it up because, as I said, it worries me. I'm not sure what you mean by "especially for Gwent".

200 hours in a game that's been out for less than a month? Five decent decks? You do realize that that puts you in the minority, right? I don't mean this in an insulting way, an offensive way, etc., but that's just unrealistic for most people no matter how much they like the game.

I do have a goal in-game, but between the game's daily reward limit and the fact that Xbox players can only buy kegs with ores... yeah, I can't do much as far as new cards and deck experimentation is concerned.

Yes, my point was exactly that i probably spend a lot more time than most people in the game and didn't see the walk you were talking from my point of view.

Hopefully time will give you extra content and stuff to do !

 

[FreezingSun]

I feel the exact opposite way: 76 hours played and I'm having more fun than on day one. Most of that stems from the fact that me and most of my opponents have decent and varied decks now. Over the last three or four days I've actually encountered a very balanced selection of opposing factions. Monsters was definitely not as overwhelmingly prevalent as before, because people have adapted to the weather onslaught that ruled the game with an iron fist in its first week.

My motivation to play doesn't really come from earning cards though. They're a means to an end. Obviously I do get excited when I see that orange glow around a card from a freshly opened keg, but not because it'll fill out my collection. It's exciting because it gives me more tools to build my decks with, which in turn will give me new ways to play and (hopefully) win. I would have been perfectly happy to play the same amount of hours if every card was unlocked from the start and I could have gone nuts building decks.

With more game modes, singleplayer and who knows what else still to come, I'm not worried about my long term enjoyment of the game. Can't speak for others, obviously.

 

[Koaalar.424]

I feel the same way and brought it up here: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru.../6918770-always-the-same-long-time-motivation

In short: I think the game has a problem because of some limitations which make every match feel similar. But I have to admit that matches against Skellige and especially Sociatel can be quite entertaining and come out differently. After experimenting with some weird scoiabuilds the game became more versatile.

The Problem: those "weird" decks are not really competitive, they do well against certain decks but get crushed by others, so I only play them for fun. I still see a lot of the same monster and NR decks around and they bore me. Sometimes I even forfeit after card selection when eredin shows up, not to get free GG rewards, but I'm tired of playing against another weather deck or watching a first round pass. I can win against them, but it's just getting boring. The same with NR, you just know what he's gonna do after he pulled out the first two cards.

But as I said, I do enjoy matches against skellige or scoiatel, so I hope other decks get more versatile and less predictable with additional cards as well, and there is still Nilfgaard which could spice up the game.

 

[tonyb2014]

I feel the same way and brought it up here: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru.../6918770-always-the-same-long-time-motivation

In short: I think the game has a problem because of some limitations which make every match feel similar. But I have to admit that matches against Skellige and especially Sociatel can be quite entertaining and come out differently. After experimenting with some weird scoiabuilds the game became more versatile.

The Problem: those "weird" decks are not really competitive, they do well against certain decks but get crushed by others, so I only play them for fun. I still see a lot of the same monster and NR decks around and they bore me. Sometimes I even forfeit after card selection when eredin shows up, not to get free GG rewards, but I'm tired of playing against another weather deck or watching a first round pass. I can win against them, but it's just getting boring. The same with NR, you just know what he's gonna do after he pulled out the first two cards.

But as I said, I do enjoy matches against skellige or scoiatel, so I hope other decks get more versatile and less predictable with additional cards as well, and there is still Nilfgaard which could spice up the game.

You make many good points, as a new player I hate to be cheesed, but I am willing to adapt. Hopefully the make decks more balanced. I think that is the key.

 

[Lytha]

The Problem: those "weird" decks are not really competitive, .

I run a "weird" deck and it's competitive enough. More wins than loses.

 

[Koaalar.424]

I run a "weird" deck and it's competitive enough. More wins than loses.

may I have a look ?

 

[Lytha]

may I have a look ?

59% win rate over 160 matches, if that's what you mean.

Seems to be increasing after some tweaks I did yesterday and after upgrading from Fran to Eithne. (Next target: Aeromancy.)

 

[Koaalar.424]

59% win rate over 160 matches, if that's what you mean.

Seems to be increasing after some tweaks I did yesterday and after upgrading from Fran to Eithne. (Next target: Aeromancy.)

nah I wanted to take a look at the deck, to see how "weird" it is