I'll give my feedback, and I think a lot of people (will) agree

[Aeradom]

To be fair, I can see both sides.
However I also agree that giving the player more cards to draw prevents people from just forfeiting if their first round went bad, they get the feeling they might yet be able to turn it around. A simple card with a good ability can change the entire game. For example, if you get a card that allows you to play an additional card from your or your enemies graveyard and the card you draw has the ability to draw an additional card from your deck that would be a possible win-combo.

But here is the crux, and that is the dilemma. You can change a game in an instant, therefore even precise and intelligent planning can be thrown over and not pay off due to the enemy having an incredibly lucky draw.

What makes Gwent unique from any other game I've played isn't so much how many cards you play with, but the idea of rounds. Yes, you have games in tournaments that will do a best of three formats but you get to draw a whole new hand when you do that. With Gwent though, every round matters and for different reasons. The first is the most important because it dictates the rest of the game of course and your options are the most open. You can either go in with the attitude that I will play aggressive and look to win the roung (if reasonably possible) or play passively where your goal is to force your opponent to play as many of his cards (the big ones especially) hoping that will pay off in the next two rounds.

That essence of looking at your hand and not only planning how to win that round, but also what to do for the next two, is still very much there. The bonus three cards (assuming no extra card draw mechanic) can influence it yes, especially if you draw the right cards. But to me the most skilled player will still win because he will be able to bluff his opponents to playing those right cards at the wrong time. It's why if I'm a monster player and I have Geralt and a Scorch card, then I'm dropping Geralt in the first round.That's because I'm betting he won't have that card in hand, so he's going to be forced to play a couple of cards to get past me. Then the next round (depending on what he plays of course) I can use scorch which wipes out my little horse and guarantees I have Geralt for the next round.

What I described above is something I'm not going to find in any other card game because with those I'm relying on the fact that I'm going to draw the cards I need. With this one, even with the addition of three more cards you still have to rely on what you got because you can't count on the cards you draw to save you. And if you are, then more often than not you will lose.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

Considering there were no spies, imo drawing cards was ok so far in the KTS event.

Once we get spies, we'll see if they still keep this feature.

But the reality is that in any late game match of TW3 gwent, one draws 2 to 6 new cards, so its not like this is very different in terms of quantity.

Strategically it is different so I want to see what happens eventually

 

[LK96]

Real can be only 10% like Geralt. Shani .Nenake. Crantir and maby leaders this is it.

True but in case of Caranthir, he had Imlerith abilities, Maybe developers heard fans at the fact that, for the lore purposes, Caranthir and Imlerith should have swaped abilities ?

 

[Aeradom]

get rid of the draw in round 2 and 3 and let people redraw 4 cards in the opening redraw phase less people will rage quit from bad starting hands and we can have gwent again.

No offense, but that is a terrible idea. That's because you still can end up with a poor starting hand and ultimately end up with the same issue of people dropping out if there hands suck.

---------- Updated at 07:56 PM ----------

I just have to agree - the game with passive end round card draw does not feel like the Gwent I know and love. I'm not saying it's a bad mechanic, I'm saying it's a bad mechanic for Gwent. I just hope this is still open to change.

Would you please elaborate on what you mean by "passive end round"?

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

No offense, but that is a terrible idea. That's because you still can end up with a poor starting hand and ultimately end up with the same issue of people dropping out if there hands suck.

if you redraw 4 cards in your opening hand and still have a bad hand you rage before you play, your deck is bad.

 

[Aeradom]

if you redraw 4 cards in your opening hand and still have a bad hand you rage before you play, your deck is bad.

Of just simply bad luck. Even if you draw three cards and let's say all those aren't useful to you, that means that the player at least isn't forfeiting until the final around (depending on what the situation is in that particular game as the variables are infinite).

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

4 redraws from 22 cards or so and you still have a bad hand .. That's a very bad deck

 

[Amaror]

I ultimately like the new card drawing mechanic. It kept me from forfeiting instantly when I drew a bad hand and at the same time kept me on my toes when I had a good first round. After all my enemy might have just drawn that perfect card synergy to turn it around.

 

[Tarathelion]

Yea, i agree that is a bad change. One of the most interesting things about Gwent was planning your strategy at the beginning, getting 3 new cards introduces element of randomness that you cannot plan for. I really hope that will be changed

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

I ultimately like the new card drawing mechanic. It kept me from forfeiting instantly when I drew a bad hand and at the same time kept me on my toes when I had a good first round. After all my enemy might have just drawn that perfect card synergy to turn it around.

Yeah I just wish it wouldn't be 2 cards. There were many instances in the KTS test where I played my hand too agressively and was like "damn, I'm gonna loose this one", but the 2 cards I drew in round 2 allowed me to turn the game around. I just have the feeling that 2 cards have the chance of just flipping the power scales, while 1 card would be enough to give you a chance but not too much so that the game still has a tendency.

Imagine a guy has very good cards and wins 1st round, then gets very good card in the second round and can just end the game with an air of absolute superiority. The again another guy could get a bad hand, and then the second card draw comes and the cards get even worse, while the opponent gets good cards.

That might not seem like a lot for some of you, but what I'm talking about here is the difference between a decisive victory, a last minute save and a critical defeat. I understand you need to keep it tense in the later rounds. But I have the feeling the card management and strategy layer would have more focus on them if you were only able to draw 1 card after each round, not 2 after the first one. Difference seems rather small, but in Gwent 1 card can change the entire game.

Then again, of course with 2 cards after the first round we have more of a "unpredictability" element in the game. Always depends what the intention of the developers is here. Do they want to shuffle up the game a little bit more, make it more chaotic and based on chance, unpredictable? Or do they want to make it more tactical and chess-like where you have to plan your every move and even if the enemy gets a good card after the first round and the player a bad one, he can still win it.

 

[RubenVDB]

Yea, i agree that is a bad change. One of the most interesting things about Gwent was planning your strategy at the beginning, getting 3 new cards introduces element of randomness that you cannot plan for. I really hope that will be changed

This is exactly what I thought, but in 2 sentences

 

[MilkJugArmadillo]

No card-drawing is what made the game unique, I agree this is a mistake. Hopefully easily reverted though.

 

[Ouderkirkj]

I'm not totally opposed to it, but I think it was a bad change overall. It really hampers ones ability to strategize at times, especially if your opponent has an OP deck that gets even more OP with the cards.

 

[Pawel1995]

"A lot has changed"

I agree and most of the things that have changed went worse, in my opinion. Gwent was simple and fast. Now it's very slow:

-Animations take forever, they have to be faster if the Beta hits or people will fall asleep when playing more than 1 match.

-The coin is the worst invention ever. Not only does it even flip when a person has passed (and wastes even more time) , but is also not needed. A simple notification at the start of each round like in the minigame "YOUR TURN" is enough.
If the opponent has passed, I want to play my 5 cards within 2 seconds, like in the Minigame, not waiting for 5! coinflips, one after each card...

-Mouse controlls are really bad sometimes! (Way worse than in the minigame version). Who had the idea for
*LEFT click mouse, when you want to inspecting the card, when it's not your turn
* RIGHT click mouse, when you want to inspect the card, when it's your turn.

-The carddrawing? Don't know. I don't like it, because that was such special about Gwent, not drawing cards (except for cardeffects or special abilities) Now it feels like we got a HS 2.0 and not a Gwent Standalone game. However the people that decided to go for that, did that probably because of balance issues. Though I still think it has to be solved in another way, than "draw 2/1 card at the end of the round".
Just WHY? It confuses new and old(that played Gwent in TW3) players. Just simply set RIGHT click mouse for inspecting and left mouse, for playing the game, always.

-Also in my opinion the board from The Witcher 3 was much more simple BUT way more enjoyable to watch the games on, but that's my opinion and I can't blame someone, because he/she had an idea for "this" board.

-Then what I already wrote everywhere else, before giving out any version of the game, the gametext should always match the effects:

Why is the Draug killing my 3 atk. card if the text says "with LESS than 3 strength" ?
Why can Foltest buff bronze and silver cards when the text says "bronze card" ?
Also some missing strings, e.g when using Nenneke...

 

[Ecceptor]

This KTS only show real interface and card arts all other things fakes !

KTS confirmed Tarvern brawl for gwent.

 

[jvc125]

"A lot has changed"

Now it's very slow:

-Animations take forever, they have to be faster if the Beta hits or people will fall asleep when playing more than 1 match.
-The coin is the worst invention ever. Not only does it even flip when a person has passed (and wastes even more time) , but is also not needed. A simple notification at the start of each round like in the minigame "YOUR TURN" is enough.

-Mouse controlls are really bad sometimes! (Way worse than in the minigame version). Who had the idea for
*LEFT click mouse, when you want to inspecting the card, when it's not your turn
* RIGHT click mouse, when you want to inspect the card, when it's your turn.
.

You are 100% right plus drawing cards after rounds is in my opinion a BAD idea.
time for playing and redrawing cards was ok though not to long not to short

 

[Baba.Yaga]

Not happy about card-draws after rounds either but maybe we just need time to get used to the idea. it's a drastic change from the gwent we know but it's too soon to tell whether this change will benefit or hurt the game. But got to admit my initial response wasn't positief

 

[Aeradom]

Yeah I just wish it wouldn't be 2 cards. There were many instances in the KTS test where I played my hand too agressively and was like "damn, I'm gonna loose this one", but the 2 cards I drew in round 2 allowed me to turn the game around. I just have the feeling that 2 cards have the chance of just flipping the power scales, while 1 card would be enough to give you a chance but not too much so that the game still has a tendency.

Imagine a guy has very good cards and wins 1st round, then gets very good card in the second round and can just end the game with an air of absolute superiority. The again another guy could get a bad hand, and then the second card draw comes and the cards get even worse, while the opponent gets good cards.

That might not seem like a lot for some of you, but what I'm talking about here is the difference between a decisive victory, a last minute save and a critical defeat. I understand you need to keep it tense in the later rounds. But I have the feeling the card management and strategy layer would have more focus on them if you were only able to draw 1 card after each round, not 2 after the first one. Difference seems rather small, but in Gwent 1 card can change the entire game.

Then again, of course with 2 cards after the first round we have more of a "unpredictability" element in the game. Always depends what the intention of the developers is here. Do they want to shuffle up the game a little bit more, make it more chaotic and based on chance, unpredictable? Or do they want to make it more tactical and chess-like where you have to plan your every move and even if the enemy gets a good card after the first round and the player a bad one, he can still win it.

You'd agree though that to play so aggressively (depending on the degree of course), that the odds of getting two cards that both will save your butt are unlikely, yes? To me, I actually like this angle because it means that you can't be assured victory by just making the opponent play more/bigger cards than you. It puts more value on the first round and makes it's important to not just treat it as a throwaway round.

I do agree that it makes the game a little less predictable though and I liked the part of how things could swing from decisive victory to crushing defeat because I think a great game should have that. Mind you, I still don't think three cards make THAT big a different, at least not to make up for a skill gap. This game is still about out thinking your opponent more so than being luckier. I see no less the tactical/chess-like element being removed. I'm a big Civilization fan and enjoy playing multiplayer. And that element of luck does serve to vary the game. But if I play my cards right, I can adjust to the situation and still make it work.

While I do think there will be those odd games where things turn dramatically as you suggest, I think by and large that will be made up in the amount games that don't get forfeited either at the start of the game, or at the end of the second round.

---------- Updated at 04:27 PM ----------

-Mouse controlls are really bad sometimes! (Way worse than in the minigame version). Who had the idea for
*LEFT click mouse, when you want to inspecting the card, when it's not your turn
* RIGHT click mouse, when you want to inspect the card, when it's your turn.

To be fair, they did recommend playing with a controller so I think they realize that's still a wip.

-The carddrawing? Don't know. I don't like it, because that was such special about Gwent, not drawing cards (except for cardeffects or special abilities) Now it feels like we got a HS 2.0 and not a Gwent Standalone game. However the people that decided to go for that, did that probably because of balance issues. Though I still think it has to be solved in another way, than "draw 2/1 card at the end of the round".
Just WHY? It confuses new and old(that played Gwent in TW3) players. Just simply set RIGHT click mouse for inspecting and left mouse, for playing the game, always.

I will never understand people who to with such hyperbole. Sure it does add in a new mechanic but it's hardly Hearthstone! Just in case you haven't played it, the goal of Hearthstone is to bring your opponent's life points to 0 with a game usually lasting ten or so rounds depending on the decks/players involved. That in NO WAY is like Gwent at all! The only comparison is that you draw cards, but even then you draw cards during the round so that's not that big a deal. It's still the game game where you have three lanes and you are given a set amount cards and have to beat the opponent in two of three rounds.

I get why some people opposed the idea, their purist and they think they know what makes Gwent great as opposed to some other game. And with the card drawing in general, I admit it is something new. But comparing it to Hearthstone? Stop being ridiculous. My girlfriend and brother will play Hearthstone, ain't no way I'm getting them to play Gwent.

 

[jvc125]

I will never understand people who to with such hyperbole. Sure it does add in a new mechanic but it's hardly Hearthstone! Just in case you haven't played it, the goal of Hearthstone is to bring your opponent's life points to 0 with a game usually lasting ten or so rounds depending on the decks/players involved. That in NO WAY is like Gwent at all! The only comparison is that you draw cards, but even then you draw cards during the round so that's not that big a deal. It's still the game game where you have three lanes and you are given a set amount cards and have to beat the opponent in two of three rounds.

I get why some people opposed the idea, their purist and they think they know what makes Gwent great as opposed to some other game. And with the card drawing in general, I admit it is something new. But comparing it to Hearthstone? Stop being ridiculous. My girlfriend and brother will play Hearthstone, ain't no way I'm getting them to play Gwent.

I think you got it wrong. People now compare Gwent to Hearthstone cause drawing can change tide of the game entirely. Its pure luck. You can have good strategy for the game but between rounds you draw very weak cards and oponent very strong and your strategy is ruined.

 

[RubenVDB]

I think you got it wrong. People now compare Gwent to Hearthstone cause drawing can change tide of the game entirely. Its pure luck. You can have good strategy for the game but between rounds you draw very weak cards and oponent very strong and your strategy is ruined.

exactly