Making gwent a fair and fun experience: a fan's view.

[jorgehalcaraz]

Making gwent a fair and fun experience: a fan's view.

I'm looking forward to this game for many reasons: The witcher 3, the beatiful art of the cards that I've seen in the gameplay videos, the "out of the usual" cardgame without mana and health or attack points, and the incredible universe created by Andrzej Sapkowski.


The result of this game (its complexity, its fairness and so on) is tied to the kind of minds of the creators, that's obvious. So, the more clear they are and the more they understand the game in terms of balance, the more clear and balance the game will be.


As I see it, one of the most interesting things about this kind of games are the possibilities: the different ways one can approach a situation according to your strategy, so I'm a little worry about the number of cards that you can play and, given that you cannot draw new cards normaly, I'm thinking that most of the time you are only going to make ten decisions (if not less given that in some cases the decisions you make are plain: like removing a weather effect or casting scorch) and that would be sad. I propose a nomber of questions.


Wouldn't be great if after the first round and second (if there is going to be three rounds) both players drew one card? or two in the case of only the first round, giving only one after the second? In terms of consistensy I think it would make sense: after the first battle there could be reinforcements. And drawing exactly the card you need for the third round would make this a more epic experience. I think that to have only ten cards will restrain the game and the strategies.


With this in mind, what would the ideal deck size be? I think it has to increase a little, not 22. Maybe a few more.


In case this is not the right way, the beta could help us to see that. Another thing, the number ten is a beatiful one, but... is it the right one if the are not draws after a round as I suggested above? I think your possibilities with ten cards are not so big unless many cards change this. Again, I haven't seen the game as it is now but I would like that the creators ponder these things. Another thing that worries me is the constant use of some powerful cards like scorch and so on, It would be great that only a few decks use this kind of cards and not be force to play them in all your decks. Well that's a minor concern because knowing cd project red, I think they would see this.


Anyway. It's a great job so far. I hope more videos of the game come before the beta .

 

[lord_blex]

if not less given that in some cases the decisions you make are plain: like removing a weather effect or casting scorch

I don't think that's plain at all. it matters a lot when you play these cards, you could even win or lose the match on it.

I also don't agree with the reinforcement mechanic. the whole point of the game is managing those 10 cards. I see extra cards more as an unnecessary safety-net than as extra decisions. every single new card matters in gwent and I feel getting them for free is kinda cheap.

as for simply starting with more than ten. I don't feel like it's needed (I like how gwent is a short game), but I definitely like it more than the other version

 

[jorgehalcaraz]

I mean, you would only give two or three extra cards... I'm only pointing out that more cards (few cards) during the game could be better. Maybe is best with a little more, maybe not. I'm not saying increase your cards drawn by 5, just make it a little more complex and changeable, so players have more decisions to make during the game and so that not all of the soldiers and monsters (the cards) be fixed in the war (three rounds) by the inicial draw. And yes, I agree that in some cases the decision of removing weather effects and using scorch could be a very important desicion.

 

[DrewjiLA]

The ten card hand and lack of regular, round-based card draw are fundamental to the game. Not only is it in line with the "out of the usual" card game ideas you mention, it is essential to the gameplay. The reason being that Gwent is actually more strategically in line with Poker than it is with current online card games such as a Hearthstone or Duelyst. The main mechanic in Gwent is actually the bluff, which is stressed by the developers for this very reason. The finite number of resources without other restrictions (such as mana cost) means that the order in which cards are played is more important than the power of the cards. The fact that you must play a card or pass the entire round means a well timed bluff is virtually the same as playing an incredibly powerful card, but you have access to it at any time as long as you can convince your opponent of your bluff.

These factors invert traditional card advantage, which most TCG games define to mean card quantity. Drawing more cards isn't the only path to victory, it's possibly not the strongest.

Beyond the core gameplay, there are aesthetic considerations of a 10 card hand. The screen is stuffed as is and more importantly, there is a time limit on a turn, so regulating the amount of options on a given turn is crucial.

In the end, strategy in Gwent revolves around mind games with your opponent, not exclusively what cards each of you are playing. That is refreshing and needs extremely careful testing before making changes. I'd also reconsider the idea that strategy is about the number of decisions you can make (which incidentally is not just 10 in Gwent, the decoy is one example of this). Strategy is about the decision itself - what choice did you make? Not how many choices you make. This is where Gwent carves out its own identity.

 

[jorgehalcaraz]

I think you guys have good points, but at the end, experience should have the last word, don't you think?
I'm convinced about the inicial 10 cards now: more could be troublesome with the interface, but the experience drawing an extra card at the end of the round could be fun and interesting. It is not as if the game is out. I think that the developers should be free to explore this and many more options given by the fans. You could say that having only 10 cards is fundamental but I say lets try to break some rules momentarily, to see if it is the right thing.

But it could be a little late I admit. The northen realms have a passive that draws a card... Pff now i'm not so convinced about this, it could mess other things.

 

[DrewjiLA]

Yeah, experimentation is good. Mentioning the Northern Realms is a good example though of the decision making that happens beyond the cards you get for each game. There are other ways to make the game complex and with a proper meta, if that's the concern. What CDPR seems to be doing is placing those functions on cards, factions,and leader choices instead of adding extra layers to the rules of the game itself. This is smart to me as it keeps the initial sandbox of the game clean, so new players can pick it up quickly, which is healthy if we all want support to continue for the game.

The identity of the game has also already been heavily based on the drama of, "you only get ten cards" and players have spent a lot of time investing in the Gwent inside The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Betraying that foundation would have some repercussions that may not be worth it.

But most of all, we just want to see more gameplay videos and for it to be September :witchmas:

 

[jorgehalcaraz]

Yeah, I'm for complexity and simplicity, but it seems really hard to manage. But, if CD projekt is as passionate as they were with the witcher 3 (almost OCD like ) all would be great. I think because they would worry about these matters and act. At least I hope so. I'm only worried about the possible limitations of the "fundamentals", that's all. I would like a rich and complex game.

 

[Vitam]

From your post OP, I see you didn't understand the game at all(my assumption might be wrong though). If you think that 10 cards is a limitation of some sorts, the answer is YES ... it is. Do you know why it is so? Because this game is about skill, its about winning the war which some times means losing the battle. I really like that you have a limited amount of cards, but you also have passives that actually make you draw more cards from the deck.

All in all posts like this OP are really the worst, your wording in this situation like the tittle "fair and fun experience" just says that gwent isn't fun or fair which is a really bad statement to say, first of all the version you played is probably the W3 version, second people have a tendency to think that their idea of a game is actually TRUE or/and better(which believe me is not, your idea of the game is something that changes the way the game is supposed to be played which the devs are working every day to improve and release for the closed beta in September).

I think people should stop posting posts like this cause they are trying to send a really bad message "you devs have no idea what are doing!" and I personally do not agree with that. CDPR is one of the top of the line development teams out there and I'm trusting them more than I trust a random person on the internet accusing a game of FAIRNESS while they have not actually understood the way the game is supposed to be played.


P.S. I don't think you have bad intentions OP but, I've seen some posts like this with bad wording and huge attacks against the developers about a game that the person attacking has not even played yet. Please try that in the future. Have a nice day and good luck to you all!

 

[OrangeApple]

Well depending on its complexity and how it may differ form the actual ingame Gwent .....I'm up for a challenge. I completed the collected them all quest in the game and I have the ingame settings set to hard. But .....playing so much ingame Gwent has made the AI almost predictable even on hardest setting

 

[jorgehalcaraz]

That's what I'm saying... you all have reasons to keep certain things, the core let's say. It seems sacred for the people responding. My point of view is that is better to explore things to see if it is better one way or another. For the sake of keeping to some rule you might lost some oportunity in making this perhaps better. But you all seem to know already what is best while I seem fool. Well, the developers could have explored this and far, far beyond but I'm wondering.