Is this the end?

+
How did you work out that the "vast majority" of Gwent players are number crunchers?
By observing this community for a long time. People here (and, by extension, Reddit, Twitch streamers and their chats) have always loved to nerd over minutae such as two or three point advantages of a card over its alternatives. Maybe it's a vocal minority, but I find it unlikely - the game inself heavily promotes and even necessitates number-crunching (well, it used to...).
Maybe I can be described as a casual player, so to see that in action I'd have to play a lot of ranked matches?
That as well. But you have to be observant about what they do to even try to draw any conclusions about their personality...if they know what they're doing in the first place, which isn't always the case.
I do seem to come across a variety of player types. Sometimes I get the impression that opponents insta-quit against me because what faction I'm playing and just assume that I have some sort of dominating meta. I don't!
That's just a short-fused player type, which has no correlation with their playstyle whatsoever. Our only remaining major streamer Spyro is one of these people, too.
As for point swings, I wasn't a fan of Kolgrim and lately when I've come across him, he always has a defender to protect him. He has been nerfed though, although maybe with the new exponential growth available to the new cards, he needs to be unnerfed to make such decks competitive?
Kolgrim is a bad, bad card. It can only ever be useless or broken as hell. Even at his best, he's a tech check card - if your opponent has the right tech, you lose, if they don't, you win. And it all boils down to just one card - not to mention drawing well r1, because later your deck gets clogged hard. They should've just reworked him into something else entirely.
re Maraal, he was just an example of a simple mechanic to counter opponent's purifying your targets. When I tend to play him he's easy prey though, since the matchmaking system is rigged to always match me with opponents who have me covered and always draw better than me.
They've always denied the part about the rigged matchmaking, and yet I have, too, on multiple occasions noticed how the choosing a different deck radically changed my opponents. Could be like 20 netdecked NG opponents in a row, but then I switch to counter that (or even just add Decoy to my deck) and lo and behold! - magically not a single Joachim in sight anymore. And happened far too often to think this a coincidence.
Isn't Yrden OG? I'm assuming he always had that deploy ability until recently.
Yes. But also - what I said about necessary evil applies to the entire period of time since his release. At times he would just fall out of meta because it wasn't tall enough (so there would be no reason to consider remaking him) or be indispensable part of the game (so remaking him would upset people greatly). That's how he survived all those patches up until that one.
Which reminds me, where did you go to get that info about the changes to Puffball? Wouldn't mind having access to the source of info like that.
Some kind of database I googled up. Pretty much by "gwent database" keywords.
Whenever I've played Igni my opponents always have the ability to make only one unit on their side the tallest. Because the game is rigged that way. I really feel that I should be playing Yrden a lot with these new cards but haven't gotten around to it and the nerf makes it look a liability. Weird to nerf that card. If they nerfed the Michael Bay exponential growth engines you wouldn't need to pack Yrden. Just goes to show how the devs think. In other words, Yrden is an even more 'necessary evil' in the current state of play, and that's unnerfed too.
They just don't really care anymore, and it shows. It's all a pretense now. Have always been a bit sloppy and slow, but now they just aren't really trying to get anywhere with those changes - just create an apperance of something changing for the better as this final consolation or something.
What's MM?
Master Mirror
You never did get around to answering my last question about whether there are CTG which aren't broke.
I honestly have no idea. But it's enough for me to know that this one didn't have to be, and that's all that matters.
Maybe you liked pre-MM Gwent because it was broken to your liking?
It was broken to anyone's liking. In that almost anything had a fair shot, no matter your preferred playstyle. Very few cards were truly "dead" and pointless.
I still like my idea of using simulations to test cards and decks. Wonder why they don't do it as it can't be that complicated, you'd think.
...but that's only assuming you actually care about the player experience and future of the game.
By "rigid", I just meant some general, formulaic features of deck building. Perhaps it could be along the lines of you getting to choose a certain number of units from a certain number of tiers and the same for special cards.
With all due respect, no. The whole point of the provision system is that was that you could distribute your total points any way you wanted - either hyper-polarize your deck, or make it more rounded, and that worked just fine when that total amount of points was roughly the same for every deck, regardless of the exact proportions of gold/bronze.
Wonder if things like not having a deck made exclusively of units should be a thing too. When the community is in charge, there will be a chance for creativity. With some constraints on mods, perhaps there could be some interesting 'new' special cards say which can vary effects in useful ways. E.g. varying a 6 point damage card to have a variant which maybe damages an opponent by 3 and boosts one of your own units by 3 or some other set of 'split' effects like that.
All-special/artifact decks used to exist in the past...those were some of the stupidest metas ever. Amusing, but stupid nonetheless. Ultimately, gwent is built to work around units, and more than just one you would drop in the end to win.
Is Pro Rank going to be a thing when the community takes over? I feel cheated by CDPR because I fulfilled the gameplay requirements of obtaining that rank but it wasn't give to me.
You needed to tick the prorank regulations in your options. as you probably know now. Yeah, not super obvious, but nothing that broke the game.
I supposed the ability to chat with them could be useful, as in suggesting that you both play slow decks each other but I never found that practical and there's the obstacle of typing using a controller which is a pain in the arse.
...and then we'd steal the title of the most toxic community ever from DotA, heh...
Easy to learn, hard to master for me. The new abilities just adds to the sum of knowledge you need to learn to play effectively and I really can't be arsed doing that.
That, however, is inevitable with card games! They can't exist without printing new stuff...It just doesn't have to be as contrived as tricky Infusions are...and so strong as to push older archetypes out of meta effortlessly.
Maybe those new abilities are some sort of IQ test for nerds but they're nowhere near as fun as those language based tricksy cards that you read as working in a certain way and when they don't, you feel cheated by them but then realise that they're just doing what they say do. That's a sort of IQ test and you don't have to constantly learn about new abilities etc.
And to that I say - to each their own! And that it was possible to strike some sort of balance between those, they aren't antonymic in any way.
By "improved", I was referencing my comment about apps and websites being improved so much that they break. Do you have that happen to a lot? Something needs to be updated for 'improvements' and it bricks your whatever and breaks it? I'm wondering if the provision cap has been lifted recently. Just an impression that it may have been.

A while ago I asked a question on this board about contracts and skins. Maybe you know the answer? I'll try and find a link to this and add it below.


My question on contracts concerned the "Choose your poison" contract. I'm wondering if that was limited to a certain event or time as I've met the criteria many times over and it still hasn't dropped. From memory, a contract with the same criteria except needing more wins was unlocked by me, which makes this one not unlocking passing strange.
No idea, unfortunately.
 
Some of us here saw the signs of what's to come since Homecoming, and albeit some glimmers of hope, at the end, the developers made all the wrong decisions they could make with the game and alienated a good chunk of the base. Now they'll reap what they've sow. A pity for a game that was so promising, gameplay and art wise, from Closed through Open Beta and some chunks here and there after Homecoming.

They had all the best cards in their hands and they dropped them like a sack of potatoes.

At the end, the Joachim Phoenix' Joker was right (you know the quote).
 
That's just a short-fused player type, which has no correlation with their playstyle whatsoever. Our only remaining major streamer Spyro is one of these people, too.

Spyro plays like me or they are short-fused? I don't really study the game and I couldn't be bothered watching the devs here for an hour. I'd rather see dot points on what's going on. People posting URLs here for pictures which don't load of new cards isn't good either...I'd rather see one picture of all new cards, or at least all new cards in a faction, without having to click on anything.

Kolgrim is a bad, bad card. It can only ever be useless or broken as hell. Even at his best, he's a tech check card - if your opponent has the right tech, you lose, if they don't, you win. And it all boils down to just one card - not to mention drawing well r1, because later your deck gets clogged hard. They should've just reworked him into something else entirely.

I had the kind of game today that I wish was the norm and it was in the current seasonal mode. I'm not sure if I made an error in the 3rd round with both of us having 2 cards left to play. Kolgrim was one of them. Not sure if I could have won the game if I made a different choice of unit to play or maybe I could have drawn. Maybe I would have still lost if I went with a different unit. My point is that I like close games, even when that comes down to a mistake being the difference between the two players. Over the years I'm sure people have had decks where you can play cards badly, make mistakes and still crush your opponent. Anything to change that. Computer simulations?

They've always denied the part about the rigged matchmaking, and yet I have, too, on multiple occasions noticed how the choosing a different deck radically changed my opponents. Could be like 20 netdecked NG opponents in a row, but then I switch to counter that (or even just add Decoy to my deck) and lo and behold! - magically not a single Joachim in sight anymore. And happened far too often to think this a coincidence.

I made my comment 'jokingly' but since you're happy to run with it...what you said. Then again, I had this issue in MTG. Again, I wasn't analytical in how built decks...maybe I was just the odd person out? I.e. you run into a lot of people who take this all very seriously and swot on deck selection.

Yes. But also - what I said about necessary evil applies to the entire period of time since his release. At times he would just fall out of meta because it wasn't tall enough (so there would be no reason to consider remaking him) or be indispensable part of the game (so remaking him would upset people greatly). That's how he survived all those patches up until that one.

When I started, I found that combo of the Nor drummer and soldier who deals damage a real pain to deal with it. Yrden was 'needed' for that level of boost? Again, a passing strange time to be nerfing Yrden. Speaking of old school units and decks...I really get the feeling that strong metas from years gone back could still be competitive now...maybe they're like flared jeans? I.e. they'll come back one day?

Some kind of database I googled up. Pretty much by "gwent database" keywords.

If you can find it again, I'd appreciate it, i.e. just somewhere which allows you to search for any card and see it's evolution/devolution. I've had a quick look and nothing so far grabs me but I'm rushed at the moment.

All-special/artifact decks used to exist in the past...those were some of the stupidest metas ever. Amusing, but stupid nonetheless. Ultimately, gwent is built to work around units, and more than just one you would drop in the end to win.

A no unit deck? I find that hard to believe. Don't think that I've run across them before. Win rate for them? No doubt that on their day they could win some.

You needed to tick the prorank regulations in your options. as you probably know now. Yeah, not super obvious, but nothing that broke the game.

I had a hissy fit on this board on this topic. Too rushed now to try and link to it. My problem with this situation was, from memory:

1) Maybe I 'had' to agree to these terms when I STARTED playing. To me, you should NOT have to agree to T&Cs like this UNLESS you want to play in tournaments. Don't bother people with this CDPRBS until then.

2) The time to make me aware of any non-gameplaying requirements for Pro Rank would be when I am just about to reach it or have reached it. Again, I draw a distinction between reaching Pro Rank and actually playing in tournaments. I have no desire to play in tournaments, so I don't think I should have to tick any boxes until I do.

Again, I just feel ripped off by CDPR. It's not worth the trouble trying for that again. Having my hard work qualifying for Pro Rank would have been nice. I just want the stats and goodies that went with reaching Pro Rank.


...and then we'd steal the title of the most toxic community ever from DotA, heh...

Honestly, I can't remember finding the MTG community horrible. The worst thing about chat was trying to type with a console controller. Have you tried that? Anyway, SEC has its T&Cs and not doubt they would punish anyone who abused chat...like CDPR could do. I'd say it would be fair to suspend a player for 48 hours for bad behaviour and up the ante for further transgression, up to and including banning them in some form from the game...maybe permanently muting them for Gwent. Gwent has a substitute for communication which leaves me cold. I've had people ages ago wanting to friend me here. I'd message them asking them why. It just seems pointless having 'friends' in Gwent. You can't chat to them. You can't arrange to play them. You could in MTG though. Maybe you still can. Think I briefly accepted a friending but ditched it as it was so pointless. No one got back to me on what prompted them to friend me. Friends who don't communicate? M'kay. If you could chat and arrange matches with Gwent players, I could see it being useful as a way to try decks against eachother in a relaxed environment.

And to that I say - to each their own! And that it was possible to strike some sort of balance between those, they aren't antonymic in any way.

I thought you were agreeing with my earlier comment about Scorch. You seem to be disagreeing with me now, re tricksy wording of card effects. Doesn't my idea gel well with fantasy and magic themes? E.g. being careful what you wish for and making sure that you understand what you are doing.

Looping back to your earlier discussion about cards which help you to double poison your opponent. My deck, which I feel was caught up in the poison nerfing, had the motto: too much poison is barely enough. So, any units which weren't capable of poisoning were of no use to me, apart from a small number of aristocrats to make the ball work. No doubt sometimes I'd be forced to play ball without having enough aristocrats to make it pay. Maraal was a useful unit in my deck and I'm glad that there were no 'devotion' requirements for my Nil units to fully function. Oh, glad I didn't forget...stratagems...doesn't the poison one randomly poison an enemy unit? That sucks. Why can't I poison the unit that I want to poison? When I use the lock stratagem, that lets me collar any unit I like. Makes no sense.
Post automatically merged:

At the end, the Joachim Phoenix' Joker was right (you know the quote).

No, sorry, I don't. What's the quote? Wasn't a fan of that film. Don't think that Phoenix deserved an Oscar for that. I absolutely loved Heath Ledger's Joker though. It was his film. Would have been better if it was just him in it too. Thought he deserved his Oscar.
 
Last edited:
I had the kind of game today that I wish was the norm and it was in the current seasonal mode. I'm not sure if I made an error in the 3rd round with both of us having 2 cards left to play. Kolgrim was one of them. Not sure if I could have won the game if I made a different choice of unit to play or maybe I could have drawn. Maybe I would have still lost if I went with a different unit. My point is that I like close games, even when that comes down to a mistake being the difference between the two players. Over the years I'm sure people have had decks where you can play cards badly, make mistakes and still crush your opponent. Anything to change that. Computer simulations?
No computer simulation is advanced enough to account for a (highly subjective) "mistake". How would it tell a feint from a bad play? Or from a failed feint?
I made my comment 'jokingly' but since you're happy to run with it...what you said. Then again, I had this issue in MTG. Again, I wasn't analytical in how built decks...maybe I was just the odd person out? I.e. you run into a lot of people who take this all very seriously and swot on deck selection.
Definitely a possibility. Netdecking is a bread-and-butter component of the genre, unfortunately.
When I started, I found that combo of the Nor drummer and soldier who deals damage a real pain to deal with it. Yrden was 'needed' for that level of boost?
Yeah, about that...Such decks would often include stuff like Anna Strenger and Vysogota and maybe Odo and, later, Lyrian Scytheman and their point-generation was insane for the time, so the answer is actually "yes".
Again, a passing strange time to be nerfing Yrden. Speaking of old school units and decks...I really get the feeling that strong metas from years gone back could still be competitive now...maybe they're like flared jeans? I.e. they'll come back one day?
Not a chance. Not even in an updated form. Most old cards are too powercrept for that to happen. The ones that aren't are still around, pretty much.
If you can find it again, I'd appreciate it, i.e. just somewhere which allows you to search for any card and see it's evolution/devolution. I've had a quick look and nothing so far grabs me but I'm rushed at the moment.
A no unit deck? I find that hard to believe. Don't think that I've run across them before. Win rate for them? No doubt that on their day they could win some.
Well, almost no unit, as you had to have some to win the game with. The rule of at least 13 unts in a deck was introduced as a reaction to that particular meta.
Honestly, I can't remember finding the MTG community horrible. The worst thing about chat was trying to type with a console controller. Have you tried that? Anyway, SEC has its T&Cs and not doubt they would punish anyone who abused chat...like CDPR could do. I'd say it would be fair to suspend a player for 48 hours for bad behaviour and up the ante for further transgression, up to and including banning them in some form from the game...maybe permanently muting them for Gwent. Gwent has a substitute for communication which leaves me cold. I've had people ages ago wanting to friend me here. I'd message them asking them why. It just seems pointless having 'friends' in Gwent. You can't chat to them. You can't arrange to play them. You could in MTG though. Maybe you still can. Think I briefly accepted a friending but ditched it as it was so pointless. No one got back to me on what prompted them to friend me. Friends who don't communicate? M'kay. If you could chat and arrange matches with Gwent players, I could see it being useful as a way to try decks against eachother in a relaxed environment.
A cool idea in theory, and a few people attempted something similar on this very forum (to find friends for friendly matches, that is)...but as far I am aware, it never lasted.
I thought you were agreeing with my earlier comment about Scorch. You seem to be disagreeing with me now, re tricksy wording of card effects. Doesn't my idea gel well with fantasy and magic themes? E.g. being careful what you wish for and making sure that you understand what you are doing.
I am not disagreeing, though. Merely saying that all kinds of tricky mechanics have place in a game, "nerdy" ones as well, and not just linguistically tricky conditions.
Looping back to your earlier discussion about cards which help you to double poison your opponent. My deck, which I feel was caught up in the poison nerfing, had the motto: too much poison is barely enough. So, any units which weren't capable of poisoning were of no use to me, apart from a small number of aristocrats to make the ball work. No doubt sometimes I'd be forced to play ball without having enough aristocrats to make it pay. Maraal was a useful unit in my deck and I'm glad that there were no 'devotion' requirements for my Nil units to fully function. Oh, glad I didn't forget...stratagems...doesn't the poison one randomly poison an enemy unit?
Not anymore~
It's targeted now.
That sucks. Why can't I poison the unit that I want to poison?
Because at the time such an ability would've played for much more than other strategems...not to mention enable crazy tempo plays in doing so, and back then "tempo" and "card advantage" still meant something. The ability to swing by, say, 14 points and secure winning r1 on even at any moment? That would've been broken.

There's a reason why Maraal was that much more expensive than, say, a Rot Tosser, even though both have the same body and apply two poisons. The abiliy to apply them simultaneously is much more valuable than quanity itself.
 
If this truly will be the end of Gwent proper, I'd love to have an option to once again play on the pre -Homecoming patch. Even if it should be just against AI. Never have I ever reached such a high rank in any game, than on that patch in Gwent, so I have incredible hankerin fer THAT Gwent again. Should any devs see this message, please do respond if theres any chance to get my hands on the final 0.9 patch
 
No computer simulation is advanced enough to account for a (highly subjective) "mistake". How would it tell a feint from a bad play? Or from a failed feint?

I'd say that sims would at least demonstrate that in principle the various deck combinations are evenly matched, so that if you play the cards in a reasonable manner, your deck has a reasonable chance of winning. However, one thing that would be a concern would be the ability of company insiders to access data from sims and utilise that in games or pass on that information to others {I'll add here that I think doing that would be a sneaky version of netdecking, as it wouldn't be visible to most people}. A while ago I read of a Chinese game, I think it's called "Go" or something like that, and it was said that AI had come up with some novel and powerful plays. Go is supposed to be more complicated than chess. Maybe I also heard that chess AI has also come up with some bizarre but winning plays. It's an interesting question of whether two AIs are really ignorant of what the other is holding. In any case, even if it didn't, I suppose that it could tell a feint from a bad play by experience, like everyone else, perhaps. It sees a play. It's not sure if it is a feint or a bad play. It responds. It sees what the other AI does next and that shows which it was.

Not a chance. Not even in an updated form. Most old cards are too powercrept for that to happen. The ones that aren't are still around, pretty much.

Every now and again I come across old decks which play well against me, but that's a pretty low bar. To me they're still hard to beat. E.g. that Nor deck with Cintrian soldiers who keep boosting when they come back on the board. Maybe some of those decks which play wide, assuming I know what you meant by that, e.g. those Ske maiden decks which spawn new maidens, or that Nor deck which summons copies of a soldier for a pointslam.

Thanks for that. Hopefully I won't forget to bookmark it, once I check it out.

Well, almost no unit, as you had to have some to win the game with. The rule of at least 13 unts in a deck was introduced as a reaction to that particular meta.

Sigh. That reminds me, today I played a Ske deck in the Seasonal and I think I might have won the 3rd round if not for me playing a special which spawned a couple of units with immunity on the opponent's side. Such is life. My side was empty by this stage, so maybe a draw most likely otherwise.

A cool idea in theory, and a few people attempted something similar on this very forum (to find friends for friendly matches, that is)...but as far I am aware, it never lasted.

How would that even work with this game? I.e. you find a 'friend' on this forum...how would you even arrange to play them, seeing as the matchmaking is automated? On MTG I did have people message me for games but the problem was my console was mostly off and I had to connect a lead for internet and I unplugged the internet after sessions. So, I didn't get notifications since I wasn't connected.

Not anymore~
It's targeted now.

Oh, the poison stratagem must have been recently tweaked then? Pretty sure that I looked the other week to see what its play was.

From my last post, I forgot to add that as far as CDPR gameplay changes go, it's not so much that the devs don't care, as you said, it's more, it seems to me, that they're just biased and illogical. So, recently you've had these synergistic units which mad boost eachother. This kind of effect is being promoted. Units which counter that, like Yrden, are being actively nerfed, so as to not giving players who play it the final say with their last card on the penultimate or ultimate play. That was my thinking about Kolgrim, as in if he was unnerfed he could by himself match the opponent's synergistic mad-boosting board. And I've recently noticed that Cahir Dufflecoat or whatever he is called has also been nerfed. I played him recently and he didn't play like he always has. Is he now just geared to boost when you use whatever card it is which Nil uses to boost an opponent by 3 and your unit by 9 or whatever it is? Again, Cahir seems specifically nerfed so as to not impede those synergistic mad-boosting decks. That suggests to me that the devs so care...they care to cripple any cards which get in the way of those decks which provide Michael Bay scoring fireworks.

P.S. I just checked your link for the Cahir card and it doesn't seem up to date on the changes for him.
 
Last edited:
Kolgrim is a bad, bad card. It can only ever be useless or broken as hell. Even at his best, he's a tech check card - if your opponent has the right tech, you lose, if they don't, you win. And it all boils down to just one card - not to mention drawing well r1, because later your deck gets clogged hard. They should've just reworked him into something else entirely

I just remembered what I actually wanted to say about Kolgrim, i.e. that he is a symptom rather than the cause of the badness that ensues with him in certain Nil decks. A while ago I posted up a thread on this board 'congratulating' CDPR for finally succeeding in allowing a player to thin out my deck to 0. Gwent is supposed to be a card game. How can I play cards if I don't have any cards? That's the problem. That's the bad mechanic. Kolgrim shines when Nil has banished a good chunk of an opponent's deck. No doubt they can win without Kolgrim when they've reduced the opponent's deck to 0 by round 3. The other week I was playing this strategy a bit without success, even though at times I had reduced my opponent's deck to 0. Maybe that's my bad luck or maybe that's because I don't netdeck.
 
As many people have said, I honestly thought with the re-release of Witcher 3 (which I’m hell enjoying right now), it might be a good time to reinvigorate interest in Gwent? Gwent is by far a better game than Hearthstone and Magic (and I played both). They should’ve really marketed the hell out of this game and kept adding more content to it, fixing problems and just be more resilient. They also should’ve figured how to monetize it properly, because I think that was a big factor in all of this. I’ve spent enough money to support the game and feel saddened by this news.
 
Well, I'm not surprised. I'm only surpised that they announced it more than a year before stopping official support. That's a good way to kill the game 2 times.

But, when you have devs who claim that powercreep is just a buzzword, or by writing an article to their official site, to explain the origins and the "real" definition of the word "meta" and "meta-decks" to cover up the obvious balancing issues, [...] you can understand a lot about their mentality and the inevitable dead end the game was reaching to. [...]

How many times I've read comments here and on every major social media site about how toxic [...] NG can be for the game? What did the devs do in one of the latest updates? They buffed half their bronzes to ridiculous amounts, because I guess it didn't have a 99% play-rate already...

How many players and big streamers / youtubers did they lose with the unitless artifact decks during the notorious "homecoming" period of Gwent? What did they do? They revived Sihil, the most hated card of that time and even managed to make it competitive for a brief time, with that disgusting SK Patricidal Fury deck, so that they can nerf it again (!). I guess they wanted for us to relieve the PTSD of that time and lose more players again.

I can go on, but there's no point anymore.

For all of us who have played Gwent since the beta version, I think that Freddybabe's youtube video (which was already mentioned here) analysed pretty well the failure of this game to reach its true potential. Being the most unique card game in mechanics, with the best art and based on the most mature fantasy world, it's really an accomplishment to turn it into a dead game. Congrats, I guess.

A big thanks to Jason Slama though, who did his best to revert the failure of the "homecoming" project and buy some more time for the game, by making it more enjoyable and turning it as much as beta gwent as possible.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm not surprised. I'm only surpised that they announced it more than a year before stopping official support. That's a good way to kill the game 2 times.

But, when you have devs who claim that powercreep is just a buzzword, or by writing an article to their official site, to explain the origins and the "real" definition of the word "meta" and "meta-decks", [...] you can understand a lot about their mentality and the inevitable dead end the game was reaching to. [...]

How many times I've read comments here and on every major social media site about how [...] is NG for the game? What did the devs do in one of the latest updates? They buffed half their bronzes to ridiculous amounts, because I guess it didn't have a 99% play-rate already...

How many players and big streamers / youtubers did they lose with the unitless artifact decks during the notorious "homecoming" period of Gwent? What did they do? They revived Sihil, the most hated card of that time and even managed to make it competitive for a brief time, with that disgusting SK Patricidal Fury deck, so that they can nerf it again (!). I guess they wanted for us to relieve the PTSD of that time and lose more players again.

I can go on on, but there's no point anymore.

For all of us who have played Gwent since the beta version, I think that Freddybabe's youtube video (which was already mentioned here) analysed pretty well the fail of this game to reach its true potential. Being the most unique card game in mechanics, with the best art and based on the most mature fantasy world, it's really an accomplishment to turn it into a dead game. Congrats, I guess.

A big thanks to Jason Slama though, who did his best to revert the failure of the "homecoming" project and buy some more time for the game, by making it more enjoyable and turning it as much as beta gwent as possible.
...Slama literally set the powercreep speed to "full throttle", though. Remember them Viper and Cat witchers pre-nerf? Remember Eist?
Those were his creations. Because - I quote - "swingy cards are exciting".

I won't debate the homecoming thing - because it's true they managed to salvage it remarkably well, but the direction the game took soon afterwards was just as stupid.

Looking back, I think community should've been very angry the second they released Kerack Frigate. It was a bronze +2 engine, which already went against the fundamental tempo of the game. But it looked innocent enough...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the announcement that post-2023 Gwent will have no new card drops and, in essence, the game moves from a developer-led structure to a fan-lead one, I'm left in a state of shock. Perhaps I should have seen this coming but I didn't. The developer stream felt to me like a eulogy, nearly an hour of deliberately not saying the game was being dealt a death blow by CDPR but in effect actually saying that same thing.

The start of the end of this game was when they dropped it on console. Not the console carries the game, but it was a worrying sign for the game in general.

Alot of people talk about OLD Gwent vs NEW Gwent, a kind of shift that happened right before the game officially launched (post-beta). For me I think it is also reasonable to mark a shift in the game from CONTROL to POST-Control Gwent, a shift that happened during my time playing the game. When control game was given up, any illusion of actual control over the game balance was also given up, and card widely strayed uncontrollably away from their base values and value VS cost basis. At least it was a SHIFT, in my opinion a bad shift, but others probably have other opinions.

But after that it just doesn't seem like it was possible to manage Gwent at all, and when a game can't be managed it becomes badly managed, and then it was dropped from consoles. Not only did alot of console players leave, but I think once the game became unmanagable (and completely unbalanced/unpredictable) "post-control", then alot of players ended up leaving over time.

I can't say that the game would have thrived and saved it's own future if it continued on the "predictable" path (before "post-control" era), but at least the game was in a relatively good position back then. For me personally I think a game has to be somewhat predictable, balanced and manageable. Others might think otherwise, but most would probably agree the game would need to be manageable.

I doubt I am alone in liking games predictable and stable, so I do think people left after the post-control era for that reason. Then I think another group left when the game became unmanageable.
 
Card widely strayed uncontrollably away from their base values and value VS cost basis. At least it was a SHIFT, in my opinion a bad shift
That's it. There's nothing else to it. Slama's team stopped respecting the provision system and refused to back off, hence the massive powercreep, hence the irritation with the game, hence its slow death. I would even say all these stupid new cards would have been acceptable...at the right cost, which per norms of the 'controlled Gwent' would be radically higher. Whoreson Junior? Totally a 13 provisions card. Ditto Eist and Salamander. Terranova? Could easily be 15 or 16 even. Piggies should've been like 6 or 7 provs, et cetera. This way they could've opened new deckbuilding options and even philosophies, maybe even make deck polarization and including 8 different thinning cards less appealing, because not doing that would mean much higher relative average strength of your cards, which is kinda how Big MO pointslam decks worked a few years ago, to no one's disappointment. And they even were aware of the problem on some level, because we got the resilient Ciri buff, but that was a horribly narrow, lazy solution.


As for the potential popularity of the game...let me tell you something, just two years ago any Gwent streamer would scoff and make fun of the people who claimed the game was dying. People were positively hyped for the future, ready to give away money and asking for more journeys even, whale -style. Just Bushy and Speci alone had something like 2k viewers in total every evening, which is quite respectable for a niche CCG. The World's? Actually brought back a lot of people who'd quit during Homecoming patches. GWENT team had all the right cards, it just couldn't make them work.
 
I hope this great game doesn't die, like it happened to TESL, it was another amazing card game, left alone to die.
 
Top Bottom