New player's beta feedback, part 1: What's GWENT without spies?

[Herr-Tunichtgut]

New player's beta feedback, part 1: What's GWENT without spies?

Greetings, I am Mister Scallywag. I am an experienced TCG-player, playing Magic: The Gathering since 2012 and Hearthstone since its official release. I have started playing GWENT last saturday and I would like to share my thoughts. Note that all my feedback will be written from a new player's perspective (levels 1-10) and may not apply to players with a wider collection of cards available to them. In fact, my first piece of feedback will address the limitations of the starter-decks and starter-collections: The lack of spies.

Now, complaining about spies in GWENT is always tricky. After all, in the original Witcher III-minigame, they were a broken mess that you could just bombard your opponent with and win anything. They were in desperate need of redesign and balancing, but still, I am confident to say that spies are an integral part of GWENT. Because the key to all GWENT is (or at least, is supposed to be) knowing when to pass. Giving your opponent a free unit is not that much of a loss if you give it to them in a round that you have no interest in participating in. At the same time, if you fear that your opponent is going to bail on you, a well-timed spy might change their mind. Or does it? This is what I like about GWENT. It's a TCG that feels like playing poker. It's a game where seeing through your opponent is more important that pulling off the fanciest combos. But sadly, the new player experience is nothing like that because there are no spies. You might argue that I'm technically wrong because there are Ambassador and Emissary, but I think they don't play like spies at all - rather, they function like regular units. You play them, gain unit strenth, and that's it. Not a lot of intrigue going on.

I know that throwing around spies may be considered advanced strategies. I understand that players need to familiarize themselves with the game's basics before using them to bluff. But without cards that incentivize passing, all matches play like regular TCGs: You take turns playing cards until nothing is left, then at the end, you compare your numbers. The one with the higher one wins. There is no subterfuge, no misdirection. Just straight-forward number crunching. That doesn't feel a lot like GWENT. (Note that this may also be caused by the additional cards drawn at rounds 2 and 3, but that's a different topic.)

Hopefully this will change at higher levels, but I believe that players should be introduced to the concept of bluffing more early. And for this, we need access to more cards that incentivize throwing a round, other than that cute cow. In short: Please consider giving your players more bluff-related cards more early - especially more spies.

 

[Sunsibar]

Topic moved to General Discussions

 

[Herr-Tunichtgut]

Thanks, Sunsibar!

 

[RickMelethron]

In fact, my first piece of feedback will address the limitations of the starter-decks and starter-collections: The lack of spies.

starter decks are exactly that, decks for people who are starting the game; throwing in a bunch of complicated mechanics, on top of working out the game's basic concepts, would be overwhelming to a lot of players. (in fact, so many new players think spies are bad because you give a high value card to the opponent)

 

[DabCanada]

Hi I just got accepted to the beta testing. I downloaded Galaxy but cannot find the Gwent game anywhere. Any help would be appreciated as I'm dying to try this

 

[Flowneppets]

Well you have Nilfgaard designed around using spies but i agree that it would be nice to have more reasons to pass earlier instead of players using most of their cards up in round 1. I find the most fun games are usualy the ones where both still have lot of cards in round 3.

 

[Herr-Tunichtgut]

starter decks are exactly that, decks for people who are starting the game; throwing in a bunch of complicated mechanics, on top of working out the game's basic concepts, would be overwhelming to a lot of players. (in fact, so many new players think spies are bad because you give a high value card to the opponent)

I agree that putting cards like Prince Stennis into players' starter decks would be detrimental, but there has to be some way to introduce players to this concept. For example, Hearthstone does a good job introducing their players to new mechanics by giving them basic cards step by step. Elder Scrolls: Legends does it even better with its story campaign.

But the problem remains: I have reached level nine by now and I haven't encountered any bluffing whatsoever. And frankly, I fear that it will remain that way on higher levels as well. Yesterday, I went through the card list and I was shocked to see just how few spy cards actually exist, and how most of them work like Ambassador and Emissary. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that these cards exist because they give the developers more design space, but where are the "real" spies? Where's the bluffing? You know, the kind of "bluff your way to victory"-bluffing as promised on the game's main page?

And more importantly, what is left when you remove bluffing from GWENT? To me, the answer is clear: Something that's more similar to Yu-Gi-Oh! than GWENT.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Moderator: Posts deleted. Back on topic, please.

 

[RickMelethron]

but where are the "real" spies? Where's the bluffing? You know, the kind of "bluff your way to victory"-bluffing as promised on the game's main page?

spies aren't meant for bluffing, they're meant for card advantage. basically, you play a card and draw another, making your hand-size stay the same.

the most common scenario: you win round 1, play your spy to stall on round 2 (since the opponent can't pass safely) and go into round 3 with a larger hand.

To me, the answer is clear: Something that's more similar to Yu-Gi-Oh! than GWENT.

sounds like an awfully dramatic statement... literally, the only thing yugioh and gwent have in common is the fact that they're card games.

 

[Herr-Tunichtgut]

spies aren't meant for bluffing, they're meant for card advantage. basically, you play a card and draw another, making your hand-size stay the same.

the most common scenario: you win round 1, play your spy to stall on round 2 (since the opponent can't pass safely) and go into round 3 with a larger hand.

This is where I disagree. For me, GWENT has always been a game that was decided in round one, or rather: by winning round one as effectively as possible. Sure, you can always win round one, if you really want to. The question is, if you do, do you also have enough cards to win a second round? This is why I love playing spies in round one. How does my opponent react? Do they throw in more stuff? Then I can safely pass. Do they bail on me too early? Then I may be able to steal the round. This mindgame around the pass mechanic is what I envisioned when I heard that a standalone, balanced version of GWENT was going to be released. And so far, I have gotten nothing of that. Instead ... well, that brings me to your second point.

sounds like an awfully dramatic statement... literally, the only thing yugioh and gwent have in common is the fact that they're card games.

Granted, I am exaggerating, but allow me to elaborate. Yu-Gi-Oh! is a combo-centered game. Although there is a combat mechanic, summoning your monsters is an arcane process with incredibly specific summoning requirements (should you want to summon a monster that actually accomplishes something). So in the end, everything boils down to who pulls of the fanciest combo, or rather, who pulls of the most effective combo. Without bluffing, GWENT plays no differently than that. It all boils down to who has the most effective synergies.

What's worse, each round of a match plays the same. Each round is an all-out fight to the death. Passing rarely yields any benefit. That's because opting out of a round only makes sense if you can misdirect your opponent, or if you can build up some form of resource advantage in that round. And currently, there are very few tools to do so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for the old, overpowered spies to return. They were a mistake. You should never print spies that give you more power than they provide to your opponent. I think the new spies like Prince Stennis are the right way to go. But they are just too few to have any impact.

 

[RickMelethron]

For me, GWENT has always been a game that was decided in round one, or rather: by winning round one as effectively as possible.

which gwent are you talking about, the broken witcher 3 mini-game or very early stages of the beta?

This mindgame around the pass mechanic is what I envisioned when I heard that a standalone, balanced version of GWENT was going to be released.

what's balance about a game that is decided in round one (as you so put)? basically, every game would come down to starting hands and standard thinking skills...

you said to be level 9, which is far from being enough experience for a good grasp of the game and the various plays people use, given that your opponents are mostly new players with limited collections. level 20 is where things really start to pick up, not to mention, of course, ranked games. (generally rank 12 and above, given how easy it is to climb the early ranks with a good deck and average experience)

Granted, I am exaggerating, but allow me to elaborate. Yu-Gi-Oh! is a combo-centered game. Although there is a combat mechanic, summoning your monsters is an arcane process with incredibly specific summoning requirements (should you want to summon a monster that actually accomplishes something). So in the end, everything boils down to who pulls of the fanciest combo, or rather, who pulls of the most effective combo. Without bluffing, GWENT plays no differently than that. It all boils down to who has the most effective synergies.

yeah... and yugioh gives people various different cards to stop your opponent from doing their combos.

What's worse, each round of a match plays the same. Each round is an all-out fight to the death. Passing rarely yields any benefit. That's because opting out of a round only makes sense if you can misdirect your opponent, or if you can build up some form of resource advantage in that round. And currently, there are very few tools to do so.

card advantage is the most important thing in winning matches; depending on the deck you're playing, it's better to pass than go -2.
also, knowing what your opponent is doing. if your opponent is going all-out to take round 1, you can toss a couple of minor cards here and there to force him to spend more cards; especially if you have a large power swing to take the round if he decides to give up (d-bomb vs buff decks and huge weather/igni, for example)

as i said, you can't get a good grasp of the game when you're playing against mostly beginners. it would be like playing yugioh against people who only use structure decks

 

[Herr-Tunichtgut]

I'm not going to disect your post and reply to every single point you mentioned. But if you say that GWENT at levels ten and above is different from these straight-forward, all-out matches, then I'm glad to hear it. However, that brings me back to my original point: Why is the game so different for new players? Or rather: Why does it take so long until the real fun begins? I mean, it took me a lot of games to end up at level nine and it will probably take me one or two more weeks to get to level twenty. I might just loose interest until then, with each game, no, each round playing the same.

Maybe this is just how sluggish any new trading card game feels like. But with GWENT, I feel like I'm playing an entirely different game. I feel that the core promise of "bluffing yourself to victory" is not fulfilled for new players.

 

[scraps69]

Hi mate, I'm pretty new as I only started playing 2 days ago. I decided to support CD Projekt Red and get 60 kegs. I went with Nilfgaard because playing the Witcher 3 that was pretty handy especially in the advanced tournament in the game - spy vs spy vs spy vs spy strategy. What I'm doing is using John Calveit, 3 x Ambassadors and Cantarella and I'm finding that definitely scratches my spy itch. Admittedly your post is broader then that.. and in some respects I agree. Maybe a neutral spy? But we don't want to overpower one card either... definitely a conundrum that I couldn't solve in any capacity! Thankfully that's for CPR to figure out and not me.

Maybe this is just how sluggish any new trading card game feels like. But with GWENT, I feel like I'm playing an entirely different game. I feel that the core promise of "bluffing yourself to victory" is not fulfilled for new players.

Admittedly you were bluffing against AI . I just played a game where I used my Ambassador spies in Round 2, 3x Ambassadors to buff up 3 non gold units. And the rest of my deck was absolute rubbish but it brought the total to 60 to 30. The Skellige player had more cards then me and I don't doubt he would have beat me had he not folded (surrendered) in the face of seemingly impossible odds (when in fact he probably would have beaten me). Again to reiterate, I am level 3, little experience myself and my opponents also lack experience too.

 

[basicplan]

I'm not going to disect your post and reply to every single point you mentioned. But if you say that GWENT at levels ten and above is different from these straight-forward, all-out matches, then I'm glad to hear it. However, that brings me back to my original point: Why is the game so different for new players? Or rather: Why does it take so long until the real fun begins? I mean, it took me a lot of games to end up at level nine and it will probably take me one or two more weeks to get to level twenty.

I think it's because you havent played around with all the factions and different deck-builds. You can build your deck in numerous ways. I for instance have 4 different Nilfgaard decks all with their own playstyle. The fun in this game lies more in building the 'perfect' deck for me.

 

[Swifty4]

I'm level 15 and started on Monday - it won't take weeks to level up if you just manage to do the daily. I've had plenty of games where I have to think about whether the have scorch and try forcing them to use it - even in the early games. You have the bolt card which gives counterplay to things like basilicas or things that power themselves up. Using resilience after they pass to screw them in the next round is also fun and is a nice bluff as it just looks like you're overextending. I agree the spies in Witcher 3 were way more fun but they were inherently broken and this is why they need to be limited to you can't have more than a few in a deck though the spies they do have in Nilfgard give a cool design space with John Calviet (the hero that steals your spies back) and treason (a card that steals back one spy and pumps it). If spies were just card advantage engines and you had loads of them in the deck then JC and treason would be degenerate.

Though I do feel that if you had canterella as one of the cards you start with (and just get rid of the rubbish 10 power silver cards) then it'd help introduce new players to the idea of card advantage and one of the main Nilfgard strategies. Of course the other classes would get a different silver to start with that fits into their strategy as they aren't really built around spies and they didn't use them in Witcher 3 game anyway.