New info on Homecoming from Burza [RIP Gwent]

[AlenCT]

And at last: if you want to play the witcher version of gwent: play witcher 3

When witcher 3 came out and many players (including me) asked for a standalone gwent, we wanted to play this awesome mini game without having to have w3 installed (and travel across the world to meet npcs to play with).

But cdpr decided that the game is crap and they can do better. And now is the third time that they realize the game is crap and people who played it and enjoyed are dumb. And that includes me. Although I left after closed beta, this latest version was rather fun again.

Don't get me wrong, I'll check out homecoming, and if I like it, I'll play it. But this is how I feel about cdpr changing the game once again...

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Wow, i did not expect Gwent to be even worse than just a 2-row what-ever cardgame. Spies, Gold-cards regulation and less rows. At least they are consequent of dull the game.
Interpreting the past, i see a red line now since the OB started. So why we have problems like spies, coinflip and drypass which we didnt had then? I am at a point were i dont even wish good luck to the devs, because they really try to bury the game.
One last question: What remains from original gwent in Homecoming? Placing units with points, higher amount of points win, weather, different card value (gold/bronze). I am not sure if ALL of this will not to be cut down even further, like the rest.

It is a miracle how someone can put a promising game into garbage.

 

[klaymen]

When I read the devs' post about Homecoming, I was eager to give them the benefit of the doubt. But after reading this, it appears that the announcement of Homecoming was less like "guys we screwed up, so we'd like to go back to the point when the game was fun for more of you" and more like "guys we screwed up, so we'd like to go back to the point when the game was fun for more of you but only in part, because we had a few good ideas that we think will be better for the game (just as we did before with Midwinter, agility across the board, etc., but it will be better now for sure nudge nudge wink wink)".

You can live only so long off of the goodwill earned by the Witcher 3 (or the series in general) and I am becoming more and more sceptical.

 

[time_drainer]

I just finished watching the actual talkshow video.
Here's my take on the changes noted in OP:

a) 2 rows is pretty much confirmed and settled.

As I stated on a couple other places, I don't mind this too much as the third row doesn't add too much value to the game right now. The fact that it has always been this way in Gwent adds zero value to me.
As for what they do with 2 rows, based on talkshow, it's probably gonna be more interesting than current 3-row system, but we'll have to wait and see how (or if) it actually works. You could also say there would even more potential in 3 meaningful rows, but I would rather see an actual execution working well, than potential that can never be fulfilled. If it takes 2 rows to make it work, I'm fine with it.
As for reasons on why they wanted to do it, my impression was that the mechanic they came up with to make rows matter worked better with 2 rows, so not primarily art or to enable mobile (as for mobile it came up during questions and Burza's answer was something along the lines of they want to make it happen eventually, but it's not a priority atm).

b) coin flip fixes based on previously mentioned "initiative" leaders

That just wasn't how it went down. There was a question regarding this, that Burza didn't want to comment on it. So I guess there's no clear direction yet on how they'll solve it.

c) no new modes

Makes sense to me, concentrate on building a working core than adding new stuff

d) leaders with multiple and passive abilities and card abilities that can be used several times during a round [or a match?]
j) items will now work completly differently (attaching them to other cards or something like that)

Burza mentioned lot of experiments they're doing regarding new type of abilities (leaders mentioned specifically but other cards with "timed" abilities were also mentioned). Equippable items I can't recall as confirmed thing but more of some sort of speculation from Swim.
In my opinion if these new mechanics work out and actually make it to the game they can make for a better, more complex game experience (it's gonna be anything but oversimplifying the game). But it can also go horribly wrong as with any other types of added complexity if they don't get it right.

e) new visuals referring back to the witcher universe

Definitely an improvement though I'm more interested in gameplay.

f) deckbuilding requirements, namely a point limit instead of a X gold cards, X silvers.

That could actually be quite interesting and open up design space (which is a huge plus for me as I like to build my own decks), though it may be more harder to balance properly. It wasn't clear for me whether all cards in the same category will have the same cost or it's gonna be different cost per card. Latter way could be way more work in balancing but it could get more fine-grained in exchange. So we wouldn't have the current problem of having bad bronze cards vs good bronze cards.

g) removal of spies

Good riddance. It took me about a month in the game to fully realize CA Spies' importance, and then maybe another one to come to the conclusion that playing your spy properly has no requirements of great skill or deep tactical thinking but only an intermediate understanding of the game. Once you're past that level it only comes down to the luck of drawing or not drawing it, and the amount of spy abuse your deck packs.

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

As someone has already said it's actually aimed at discouraging dry-passes. Because of that it really matters how they want to solve coin flip, cause it would effectively remove blue coin player's best chance to mitigate his bad situation.

k) we will get weekly news after E3

Bi-weekly actually. I'm looking forward to it.

Other important take-aways for me:
- Title Homecoming doesn't mean going back towards closed beta or Witcher3 state in gameplay (Gold Immunity was specifically mentioned as something they don't want back), but rather to go back to Witcher aesthetics and also going back to things they wanted to implement when standalone Gwent started or early phases of the game, but just couldn't get to it (it actually came up around the discussion of 2 rows, so maybe they wanted to go that way initially?)
- They're not aiming to get balance perfectly right for Homecoming, as they realize it's gonna be a huge change and it's just not possible. Hope it also means frequent updates after the version launches.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

You could also say there would even more potential in 3 meaningful rows, but I would rather see an actual execution working well, than potential that can never be fulfilled. If it takes 2 rows to make it work, I'm fine with it.

You dont know what to expect from 2-row-gwent as well, so why favor it over a 3-row one? Yes the system now is not perfect or even bad, but they dont even tried to fix it with ideas from community. In the past the implemented the new placement system, where you could chose where to deploy your unit. They didnt make any profit of that. Like one said it ealier in this thread: 3 row are just at 10% of it potential. If you close it and dont try new things with it, you wont ever come back to it.

 

[time_drainer]

You dont know what to expect from 2-row-gwent as well, so why favor it over a 3-row one? Yes the system now is not perfect or even bad, but they dont even tried to fix it with ideas from community. In the past the implemented the new placement system, where you could chose where to deploy your unit. They didnt make any profit of that. Like one said it ealier in this thread: 3 row are just at 10% of it potential. If you close it and dont try new things with it, you wont ever come back to it.

I don't favor 2 rows per se (at least not at the moment), I just rely on what I heard in the video. Burza said that for the mechanics they came up with 2 rows makes sense. My impression was the mechanic came first not the idea of 2 rows. If it's a working mechanic and it's more interesting than the current barely existing row mechanics, than I'm all for it. Maybe it won't work and then I'll also want back current state. If there's a good idea that works with 2 rows, but doesn't work with 3 rows or even just works better with 2 rows, it's simple narrow-mindedness in my opinion to stubbornly stick to 3 rows.
Also how do you know they didn't try to make 3 rows work? Maybe that potential everyone looks into more rows just doesn't exist.

 

[Archpriest]

And people say reddit is the place where people overreact...

 

[Jeydra]

The overreactions from people who don't even know what Homecoming is going to involve ...

Like, yeah, if in the current game we went from 3 rows to 2, there'd be a dramatic effect. White Frost becomes Korathi Heatwave, Lacerate becomes uber, and so on. But if Homecoming is going to involve as many changes as CDPR say it will, then we simply don't know what will happen. There are too many unknowns. Weather might get reworked, Lacerate might become 2 points per unit, and so on. How can you be sure two rows won't be better than three then? Besides, they're fixing the coin flip and CA spies. That ought to count for something.

It's too early to criticize. Wait till after Homecoming, play that a bit, and then criticize. Who knows, you might even find the game more fun then.

 

[Laveley]

The overreactions from people who don't even know what Homecoming is going to involve ...

Like, yeah, if in the current game we went from 3 rows to 2, there'd be a dramatic effect. White Frost becomes Korathi Heatwave, Lacerate becomes uber, and so on. But if Homecoming is going to involve as many changes as CDPR say it will, then we simply don't know what will happen. There are too many unknowns. Weather might get reworked, Lacerate might become 2 points per unit, and so on. How can you be sure two rows won't be better than three then? Besides, they're fixing the coin flip and CA spies. That ought to count for something.

It's too early to criticize. Wait till after Homecoming, play that a bit, and then criticize. Who knows, you might even find the game more fun then.

People are well beyond the 2 row change here. The thing is precisely what you said; things will change completely. It will be a completely different game. It will be different of what we have now, it will be different than original gwent, it will be different from what people got attracted to the game, it will be different from what people bought kegs for. The 2 row change is just one factor that will make the game be completely different.

Will it be good? Maybe. But that isnt an argument against people criticizing them for basically shutting down the game and coming back with another one that will only loosely resemble what it has once been.

 

[Jeydra]

People are well beyond the 2 row change here. The thing is precisely what you said; things will change completely. It will be a completely different game. It will be different of what we have now, it will be different than original gwent, it will be different from what people got attracted to the game, it will be different from what people bought kegs for. The 2 row change is just one factor that will make the game be completely different.

Will it be good? Maybe. But that isnt an argument against people criticizing them for basically shutting down the game and coming back with another one that will only loosely resemble what it has once been.

That's like saying that if CDPR published the current Gwent and then announced they were starting work on a sequel named "Gwent 2.0", people would criticize them for even daring to make the sequel. I find it hard to believe - I've never seen anyone criticize a company for making a sequel or expansion since "the original was too good".

 

[AlenCT]

That's like saying that if CDPR published the current Gwent and then announced they were starting work on a sequel named "Gwent 2.0", people would criticize them for even daring to make the sequel. I find it hard to believe - I've never seen anyone criticize a company for making a sequel or expansion since "the original was too good".

Maybe they could've went the way of mtg and have editions. That way I could keep on playing the closed beta edition... But it would probably split the player base too much.

 

[xalaa]

They better have a very good reason for those 2 rows, because it will just limit the game so much otherwise.
Not to mention the furious community ..

 

[OG.laloquaint]

I don't even know how to feel about this honestly. It seems like they (CDPR) have no idea what they're doing lol. I will hold my thoughts on this until Homecoming is actually out. Maybe it won't be Gwent anymore but I hope it's a good game at least.

 

[time_drainer]

While I touched the change aspect in my comment I didn't really give an actual opinion on that.
You could say that Gwent had multiple versions so far: Witcher3, Closed Beta, current. Also there was the time between Open Beta launch and Midwinter, that may count as another version again, though from what I understand it was also kind of a state of evolution with significant changes like removing faction passives, Gold Immunity and stuff.

In my perspective each major change had a reason. Witcher3 version was completely broken balance-wise and also not very interesting on longer term, the current version seems not as deep and complex as we would prefer. I can't really comment on Closed Beta and pre-Midwinter state as I wasn't around, but it head some things that seem problematic to me: like faction passives, Gold Immunity, insanely strong weather seem bad to me in theory (and from Witcher3 version experience), and I'm undecided about fixed row stuff. From what I hear it was also broken balance-wise and open for a lot of exploits and riddled with bugs. Maybe they could have balanced, fixed it and make it work, maybe it was just impossible - I can't really judge this. But I'm not here to argue on the specifics this time.

The point I'm trying to make is that each major change seem to have a valid reason - which you may or may not agree with of course. Personally I see change as a good thing if it happens for good reason - and if you don't mess up the implementation of course. The reason for Homecoming from what I understand is to turn back from the Midwinter direction and get the game more complex again, which is a reason I can agree with and support. It is a similar emphasis of complexity and skill-focus what people are missing from the game since pre-Midwinter and Closed Beta. But yes, we're talking about whole different kind of complexities and mechanics, so it's gonna be a whole different game.
I don't have a problem with this as long as this new version is gonna be a better one. Maybe one with the same spirit but completely different (and hopefully better) implementation. My biggest worry is not that things will change completely, but that they won't get it right.

But I also understand that other people are more traditionalists in this sense.

 

[Selestes]

I don't want 2 rows.
I just want some changes to balance.
this could be done, no???....
otherwise, why did we spend 1 year of open beta??
i dont want Different game.
i want This game.
I PAID FOR THIS GAME.
How can I get my money back???

Imagine you paid for Ferrari, and they gave you.. even Lamborghini?? Why do you need it?? If you wanted, you could have bought it. But you paid for Ferrari. The shock would be even greater if you paid for Ferrari, and they gave you hyundai or kia . You dont wanna have it, dont wanna drive it (maybe you'll like it actually), because of the deception. And in the future, it will be very very difficult for company to earn back their respect.

 

[Guest 4021160]

Too toxic this.

 

[Pruny]

True, this game requires many small balance hotfixes to make more arhetypes viable, but cdpr dont listen to our sugestions.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Also how do you know they didn't try to make 3 rows work? Maybe that potential everyone looks into more rows just doesn't exist.

Because i'm here since closed beta and saw a few metas which were just fine. I never ever saw any efforts to improve the rows, the contrast was more often the case. Maybe the placement update, but they stopped before they got any good value out of it.

It's too early to criticize. Wait till after Homecoming, play that a bit, and then criticize. Who knows, you might even find the game more fun then.

Why not stop a bad decision before it cant be removed and CDRED dont removed any changes yet. IF they implement these updates they wont get a step back, i would be about it. I dont need you to punch me in the face to say i'll hurt me.

 

[Khreygond]

That's like saying that if CDPR published the current Gwent and then announced they were starting work on a sequel named "Gwent 2.0", people would criticize them for even daring to make the sequel. I find it hard to believe - I've never seen anyone criticize a company for making a sequel or expansion since "the original was too good".

That's not what it's like. It's like the Gwent 2.0 sequel instead takes the place of the original Gwent. You know, what we are all here for, some of us paid for (which is not a big concern for me personally, as every cent that I poured was with the knowledge that the game may change dramatically and I was cool with that), and what we all want or wanted before it started becoming so different. People here are not criticizing them for making a different game. They are criticizing because they scrap the game we are all here for completely, when the community has been clear on what it wants. It wants a better, more polished, more refined version of this game. The one we have now.

 

[Guest 4305932]

That's not what it's like. It's like the Gwent 2.0 sequel instead takes the place of the original Gwent. You know, what we are all here for, some of us paid for (which is not a big concern for me personally, as every cent that I poured was with the knowledge that the game may change dramatically and I was cool with that), and what we all want or wanted before it started becoming so different. People here are not criticizing them for making a different game. They are criticizing because they scrap the game we are all here for completely, when the community has been clear on what it wants. It wants a better, more polished, more refined version of this game. The one we have now.

I'm so happy they didn't listen to the "community" and they have not been contented with the current state of gwent. Cdpr understood mistakes they've made and have taken risks, to make something better. If it was for your reactionary community gwent would have been the "put as many spies as possible and win the game" W3 version.