New info on Homecoming from Burza [RIP Gwent]

[Barracuda88]

I've been trying to wean myself off Gwent recently and doing a fairly good job of it. This news feels like it's going to make it even easier. Lose 2 rows because we want shiny things? Really? And it's a done deal?

I'm sure they have a lot of really smart people coming up and working on these changes and there are a million good reasons for them, but I, personally, am having a hard time finding anything to be excited about when I hear "We're going to remove 2 rows because we want shiny things."

Anyway, a thousand hours is probably enough for one game.

 

[418327]

Just gonna throw in my two cents. Here they are:

Game design is an art form and anyone knows that artists should be given as free reigns as possible to do a good job.

And, the core of Gwent is far smaller than most realize, it's basically just:
1. Three-turns-play-most-points-system (in a card game setting)
2. Witcher lore and flavor (easy to underestimate how defining of a factor this really is)
3. High skill/high complexity and low RNG (midwinter patch proved the importance of this as a defining factor for Gwent)

Other than that, Gwent will still pretty much be Gwent and might even become more Gwent-like (which it seems it will based on the leeks we've gotten, IMHO). Gwent could even have one row and it could still be more Gwent-like than ever before. There. I said it.

 

[Darwing]

h) fixing card advantage by limiting the card hand size at each round.

Uhhhh WUTFACE??? fixing card advantage? uhhh most card games have card advantage tactics... whats their to fix?

 

[Darwing]

Also Thronebreaker.... why do people care about it so much, if they want a separate RPG game then build a separate RPG game... this is GWENT, based off an RPG games in game... now we are going to have devs working on a spin off og a card game based off an RPG games in game mini game?

Seriously why are they tying thronebreaker into this game its stupid... just do a card game and if you have so many devs to work on another full RPG game then do that, don't combine them into 1 and sacrifice the overall integrity of the card game its based off.

 

[Archpriest]

It wasn't out of context.

Yes it was.You did not address the whole segment.

I talked about this. Since we know about many things that will be limited, or completely removed as a consequence of 2-2 Gwent, and we don't know what will actually work better in 2-2 Gwent, the logical conclusion now is of course to keep a Gwent that is not 2-2 rows.
This is not mentioning the potential more-than-2-2 rows Gwent has, in comparison to 2-2 Gwent. Because current Gwent does not fully capitalize on its potential - that's hard to disagree with. ("not fully" = in a very basic way)

How about the stack effects Burza spoke about? That introduces more complexity., not simplifies the game.

Not necessarily bad. You can make a good game with one row.

But it will be more simple than 3 rows could be.
And every time a patch put the game more acessible and simple, it got worse.



And yes, two rows can be more complex than what we have now. But thats besides the point.

Burza spoke about stacking cards. That's absolutely not simplifying the game, quite the contrary. Then it's no longer a linear game.

It's difficult to provide evidence for how two rows will play out before it gets to that point. I can agree with that. On the other hand, it's not difficult to look at similar sizable changes made to the game over it's life-time, consider their impact and use them as a reference point. This is to say many of the big changes have simplified the game, added unnecessary RNG, both and, and this gets into the realm of subjectivity, made it worse.

When the above turns into a pattern, with a revolving door of the same decision making process followed by similar outcomes, it's natural to come to expect it. The benefit of the doubt is no longer present. This may not be concrete, after the fact evidence. It does count for something. It makes major changes or overhauls to fundamental mechanics raise all sorts of red flags (and no, in no way am I suggesting all of the changes to the game have made it worse).

I can make similar statements about some of these other potential changes.

Restricting hand limits? Really? That might remove the incentive for dry-passing, great. It also has a very high potential to punish playing for CA, one of those previously mentioned skill elements, remove CA as a point of emphasis in general and lead to all manner of abusive approaches. Dry-passing R1 was hardly a thing in past iterations of the game. How about looking at what changed, determining why it became a thing and tweaking those areas?

A point system for cards with no limits on golds/silvers? What exactly does this improve? If the point system is tied to card value it means card tiers cease to be relevant. Those might as well be removed as well. If it's tied to card tier it has it's own set of issues (more room to exploit problematic mechanics/card interactions, less ability to predict the opponent, to name a few). Is this supposed to prevent the meta for a given patch version becoming stale? I'll believe it when I see it.

All of this is completely ignoring that inevitable period following the changes where everything has to be looked at, tweaked and re-addressed. It's true this happens for any patch or cycle of changes but it has a far greater impact when fundamental aspects of the game are changed. This consideration by itself is reason enough to look at the proposed alterations with caution and skepticism.

All the things you mentioned and burza spoke of are introducing a more complex game instead of a third row. Think about it, a deck building points might check OP combos, etc. Stacking is a whole new dimension. If they deliver, I'm cool with it.

I'm not in favor of removing the third row, I'm in favor of making the game better. And we can't possibly say right now if two rows will be worse. They might or they might be much better that 3 atm.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

And stacking with 3 rows isnt possible because...
You dont complify a game, if you delete one aspect and give one new, thats just change, BUT i expect a stacking mechanic witch is a archetyp, not a possibility for all cards. That assumed i see a lot more potenial in 3 rows instead of stacking.

 

[Thunderscape]

Burza spoke about stacking cards. That's absolutely not simplifying the game, quite the contrary. Then it's no longer a linear game.

You can also stack cards on 3 rows.
Removing a row is simplifying. Unless you would divide it in sections, and its confirmed it wont happen.



And if memory serves me right it was about cards of the same power, so it wont occupy so much space. It hadnt nothing to do with complexity.
Did Burza said card stacking would be a gameplay mechanic? (Honestly asking)

 

[Archpriest]

You can also stack cards on 3 rows.
Removing a row is simplifying. Unless you would divide it in sections, and its confirmed it wont happen.



And if memory serves me right it was about cards of the same power, so it wont occupy so much space. It hadnt nothing to do with complexity.
Did Burza said card stacking would be a gameplay mechanic? (Honestly asking)

Rows are one dimensional, stacking and rows are two dimensional. So no, not simplifying. I really can't explain it in a ...simpler way.

 

[Laveley]

Rows are one dimensional, stacking and rows are two dimensional. So no, not simplifying. I really can't explain it in a ...simpler way.

Dude, if you want to compare 2 rows game to 3 rows game, you have to compare them on the same state. You are comparing 2 rows with stacking to 3 rows without stacking. Than its obvious that 2 rows with stacking aint necessarily a simplification over 3 rows without stacking, but you are adding a variable to it (stacking).

If you want a fair comparison you have to compare 2 rows to 3 rows both with stacking or both without stacking.

And its obvious that 3 rows with stacking would be a more complex game.

Now, as stated so many times on this thread already, the will be so many changes to the game (stacking included) that it may as well end up more complex than what we have now, but obviously not just because one less row. One less row on a vacuum its a simplification, thats an objective fact really.

 

[Laveley]

Just gonna throw in my two cents. Here they are:

Game design is an art form and anyone knows that artists should be given as free reigns as possible to do a good job.

And, the core of Gwent is far smaller than most realize, it's basically just:
1. Three-turns-play-most-points-system (in a card game setting)
2. Witcher lore and flavor (easy to underestimate how defining of a factor this really is)
3. High skill/high complexity and low RNG (midwinter patch proved the importance of this as a defining factor for Gwent)

Other than that, Gwent will still pretty much be Gwent and might even become more Gwent-like (which it seems it will based on the leeks we've gotten, IMHO). Gwent could even have one row and it could still be more Gwent-like than ever before. There. I said it.

Well, yeah, thats just like... your opinion man.

Theres so much more factors that make gwent unique than those 3. What about no mana pool? What about no HP pool? What about no automatic duel between units? What about the relatively big hand/deck ratio? What about the passing mechanics? What about no every-turn draw? Theres more, but i wont really bother.

 

[Udalryk]

Where did you hear that "stacking" will be some new kind of gameplay element. Wasn't it just to save space on rows and stack copies of same units on top of each other. What are you talking about.

It would make sense though. To stack on a card when running out of space, with the card(s) underneath not adding to your total score, or something like that. But yeah, first of all it's not really a mechanic that makes removing 2 rows worth it. And second, could be done with 3 rows, even in current Gwent. Place cards over existing cards, but lose power (and any abilities of course) of cards you're covering.

This is actually a great idea. You cover cards denying their abilities, losing tempo, but at the same time protect them, to maybe at a later time move the card on top, reactivating previously covered card's power and ability, gaining tempo. But did you notice the important keyword, "move". Movement would of course work a lot better in a 3 rows Gwent. If you can just cover any cards like that at any time, how does this exactly work better in 2-2 Gwent.
But let's say you can only do that if you reach a limit, fine, maybe make 3 rows Gwent's row limit 8 or 7, then you would see this mechanic in that system as well. But it's a bit weird if it would only work when you reached row's limit. It's a mechanic that should work all the time, because it loses tempo, and the card underneath "freezes", if it had any abilities.
The first time I heard about something similar was from a reddit thread a day ago I believe. But now I can see how it could work.

The unused damage dealt to the card on top would of course go through to the card on the bottom (not effects like scorch though obviously). So this is how "Trample" could work in Gwent, and removal cards would more often find more value. (I don't want stronger removal, there will be a "Deflective" mechanic as well to some cards, that counters bronze and silver removal, doing only half of its damage to target unit, with the rest of the damage deflecting to another unit).

There is an issue with the benefit it actually gives. The way I described it, it would give benefit only in specific situations, and if you really want to put all your units on one or two rows. If this was to become an additional archetype, there could be interactions like boosting the unit underneath when placing one on top for a later profit. Adding tags/items to units underneath that would maybe be too strong if added on an active card. There are certainly some (probably many) possibilities here.

 

[Mancoon1980]

You can also stack cards on 3 rows.
Removing a row is simplifying. Unless you would divide it in sections, and its confirmed it wont happen.



And if memory serves me right it was about cards of the same power, so it wont occupy so much space. It hadnt nothing to do with complexity.
Did Burza said card stacking would be a gameplay mechanic? (Honestly asking)

From what I understood stacking would only take place with cards that swarm so they take up less space on the two rows.

 

[G4merY]

For me, the let down is removal of Spies, and fixing card-advantage by limiting the card hand-size at each round. New features and changes are welcome, but unique features shouldn't be removed. Specially since Spies have been in Gwent since the start, and card-advantage makes the game open-ended. Limiting the hand size for each round will eliminate a way of winning (by having 2-3 card-advantage) altogether.

 

[Archpriest]

If you want a fair comparison you have to compare 2 rows to 3 rows both with stacking or both without stacking.

And its obvious that 3 rows with stacking would be a more complex game.

I disagree here. In a vacuum, it is. But designing a MP game and especially a card game is very hard. I'm sure there were thoughts about 3 rows at CD{R but they probably have a reason to move on from it.
Btw, the quote below and its part about limiting a number of cards in hand concerns me more.

For me, the let down is removal of Spies, and fixing card-advantage by limiting the card hand-size at each round. New features and changes are welcome, but unique features shouldn't be removed. Specially since Spies have been in Gwent since the start, and card-advantage makes the game open-ended. Limiting the hand size for each round will eliminate a way of winning (by having 2-3 card-advantage) altogether.

Yeah, hand size limit will require a hell lot of work and imagination, not to mention balance, to pull it off...

 

[pl91]

they could easily remove spies,and just add a one-time-per-match use button that draws you a card and gives your opponent 13 strength.there,spies card advantage problem solved,its not that hard.

 

[Laveley]

I disagree here. In a vacuum, it is. But designing a MP game and especially a card game is very hard. I'm sure there were thoughts about 3 rows at CD{R but they probably have a reason to move on from it.
Btw, the quote below and its part about limiting a number of cards in hand concerns me more.

Yeah, hand size limit will require a hell lot of work and imagination, not to mention balance, to pull it off...

Their reason is "big cad art", or at least what they say.

I also agree about the hand size and limiting CA gain. You know me, i criticize CA gain restriction since CB.

I dont mind the removal of spies, although i dont think they are problematic either. They became problematic exactly because of CA gain restriction (same with coinflip and carryover) on an environment where they are basically the last resource to gain CA. But cards like vanilla ciri and ocvist (and many others that cdpr just removed from the game) that can give you CA with a condition attached to it are imo the most fleshed out and skill-based cards of the game. Its not just "play this card and gain CA", its more like "play this card at the right time, under the right conditions and be rewarded with CA".

Remove all CA gain cards of the game and it will become a strictly tempo-based game because tempo will be the only thing that can grant you CA and you cant "nerf" tempo gain all-around the game.

 

[Caisekrus]

I am not against the two rows: it can either be a good or a bad change depending on how they handle it

 

[Thunderscape]

Rows are one dimensional, stacking and rows are two dimensional. So no, not simplifying. I really can't explain it in a ...simpler way.

I understad what you are trying to say.
We have 3x1, and with stacking it would be 2xX where X is the number of stacks.
I agree, but we can also have 3xX. While keeping it GWENT.

From what I understood stacking would only take place with cards that swarm so they take up less space on the two rows.

Thats what i remember too.

 

[Archpriest]

I also agree about the hand size and limiting CA gain. You know me, i criticize CA gain restriction since CB.

I dont mind the removal of spies, although i dont think they are problematic either. They became problematic exactly because of CA gain restriction (same with coinflip and carryover) on an environment where they are basically the last resource to gain CA. But cards like vanilla ciri and ocvist (and many others that cdpr just removed from the game) that can give you CA with a condition attached to it are imo the most fleshed out and skill-based cards of the game. Its not just "play this card and gain CA", its more like "play this card at the right time, under the right conditions and be rewarded with CA".

Remove all CA gain cards of the game and it will become a strictly tempo-based game because tempo will be the only thing that can grant you CA and you cant "nerf" tempo gain all-around the game.

I couldn't put it together better myself.

:cheers:

I understad what you are trying to say.
We have 3x1, and with stacking it would be 2xX where X is the number of stacks.
I agree, but we can also have 3xX. While keeping it GWENT.

I'm going to give them a benefit of thinking this through... for now.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Their reason is "big cad art", or at least what they say.

I also agree about the hand size and limiting CA gain. You know me, i criticize CA gain restriction since CB.

I dont mind the removal of spies, although i dont think they are problematic either. They became problematic exactly because of CA gain restriction (same with coinflip and carryover) on an environment where they are basically the last resource to gain CA. But cards like vanilla ciri and ocvist (and many others that cdpr just removed from the game) that can give you CA with a condition attached to it are imo the most fleshed out and skill-based cards of the game. Its not just "play this card and gain CA", its more like "play this card at the right time, under the right conditions and be rewarded with CA".

Remove all CA gain cards of the game and it will become a strictly tempo-based game because tempo will be the only thing that can grant you CA and you cant "nerf" tempo gain all-around the game.

This, exactly all of the above. Pure CA tools like spies are problematic when you don't have sufficient CA generating tools available beyond them. One person finds a spy, the other doesn't. There is problem 1. The secondary problem, and one that would not matter if alternative CA generators were plentiful, is when a player drops a spy and the other assumes it's a safe pass, only to pass and lose a round in 1 card because some magical huge tempo play overrides the spy and opponent card. When you restrict CA generators both problems are relatively severe because CA is important and you have limited options to get it. When CA generators are plentiful even if you get screwed by RNG (problem #1) or tempo (problem #2) you can recover.

What ends up happening is some player cries about spies and the quick fix is to remove spies. So they remove spies to please said player and everyone gets left with a simplified game. Compounding matters, the game shifts toward, "Me spam points, me win game.", because it's reduced to a game of points with limited emphasis on CA. Remove CA generators and your options for CA generation consist of playing bigger cards compared to the other guy.

Paragraph 2 is why 2 rows and most of the other changes will likely flop. When the decision making process looks at spies, sees the problems and decides the solution is to remove spies from the game entirely.... yeah....