[POLL] What GWENT lacks?

[Orsest]

I really love this game, but after 100 hours of play i find game boring and repetetive, obvious reasons for is lack of cards as a result diversity of viable decks, the second reason is lack of randomness (ye, i agree that random is evil , but if look on this "feature" of card games, it makes every game more varied, i bet eevryone of you using same cards, in same sequance most of the time, makien same combos and same turn loops), what do you think?

 

[Alexandr.Gabriel]

I loved this game before rng patch mid winter. I agree that was boring, but more skilled Based.

 

[Pruny]

pointspam and agility are killing my fun.

 

[Shadow-Stalker]

A development team that actually understands the core philosophy of what Gwent is and won't mess stuff up over and over and over and over and over and over and over...



...And over in search of the never ending greener pastures. Instead of admitting multiple mistakes and correcting them in homecoming they double down and mess stuff up again.

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

Pruny manages to sum up what Gwent needs. A more tactical approach to gameplay. Less create cards, less point spam, cards being tied to rows etc.

 

[Laveley]

A development team that actually understands the core philosophy of what Gwent is and won't mess stuff up over and over and over and over and over and over and over...



...And over in search of the never ending greener pastures. Instead of admitting multiple mistakes and correcting them in homecoming they double down and mess stuff up again.

Pretty much this. I was going to say that the game need a dev team that didnt screw up the amazing potentially good game gwent was on CB but this summarizes it pretty well too.

 

[Jeydra]

Voted for more cards, since more cards = more viable decks (usually).

Gwent has a unique feature in that you don't really draw cards. In other card games like Hearthstone and Magic, the top of your deck is always a great unknown. With Gwent you already know every card in your hand and it's usually quite obvious how to best sequence for most points. To deviate from that sequence, you'd need reasons such as "to kill my opponent's engines" or "to play around my opponent passing". That can matter of course, but right now my feeling is that I mostly play on autopilot. Voted for more cards as a first fix, but it's possible this is a core design flaw.

 

[goofything]

I don't exactly know the right answer to this question. In a lot of ways I like that the card pool is somewhat small and manageable. Small changes, card adds, etc. can alter the game quite a bit. Sabbath added a whole new deck type, the few changes that were made in the swap update completely changed most of the decks that were played. Some cards are completely useless because there are cards that are just flat out better in pretty much all circumstances. Those should be reworked. I think that if most cards had some interactivity it would add a lot to the game. Maybe they do something to your own cards on the board or the other side of the board, but that would at least move the game toward the direction of each play mattering more. I think all games suffer from the lack of deck variability because ultimately a few decks will prevail. RNG is not, in my opinion, the solution to this problem. I think most people would prefer more strategic element rather than just plain luck.

After all, chess never changes, has been around for hundreds of years and is still thoroughly enjoyed, very competitive and ultra strategic. People play it for years and years, far more than they will stick with most card games. Maybe if cards were more similarly powered (golds to golds, silver to silver, etc.) but they had multiple abilities to choose from so there worth would be tied to when and how they were played relative to the state of the board....just tossing out an idea.

This is a good topic though and it would be great to hear some specific ideas that people have that could make the game even better.

I really like Gwent though and have more fun playing it than other CCGs.

 

[Shadow-Stalker]

Pretty much this. I was going to say that the game need a dev team that didnt screw up the amazing potentially good game gwent was on CB but this summarizes it pretty well too.

It has been managed so poorly that I'm not even sure that they intended to bring us the Gwent game that we begged for. And instead just used it as an opportunity kick start their jump onto the TCG bandwagon.

 

[Mollybal]

Since decks are bound by faction you run into way too many players using copy pasta decks largely due to this limit. When you think of card games like yugioh and heartstone the one thing they had in common was the ability to mix and match. If gwent was like that you'd see more original and unique decks. Though if they did that alot of things would have to be reworked..
Waiting to see what changes Homecoming brings, but either way it's tiring seeing all these copy pasta NG/ ST decks.

 

[lakired]

A development team that actually understands the core philosophy of what Gwent is and won't mess stuff up over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

This is by far the most damning culprit for why Gwent is in the state it's in. We were in a fundamentally solid place pre-MWU. Homecoming seemed at first a necessary step to refocus on the game's core elements and return HOME to what had initially been Gwent's greatest strengths: strategic complexity. Instead, the development team seems to have identified that the major flaw of the MWU was the WAY in which it attempted to cater to a more casual oriented crowd.

All of the proposed changes are designed towards creating a less consistent and more tempo based game (30 card deck, x2 bronze duplicate max, hand-size limit, removing most tutors, etc), which are the exact complaints generated by the MWU. Except now they'll be enshrined into the very fabric of the game, as opposed to an added element (e.g., create, specific high tempo cards) that can be balanced or removed.

 

[sleepyhead062]

This is by far the most damning culprit for why Gwent is in the state it's in. We were in a fundamentally solid place pre-MWU. Homecoming seemed at first a necessary step to refocus on the game's core elements and return HOME to what had initially been Gwent's greatest strengths: strategic complexity. Instead, the development team seems to have identified that the major flaw of the MWU was the WAY in which it attempted to cater to a more casual oriented crowd.

All of the proposed changes are designed towards creating a less consistent and more tempo based game (30 card deck, x2 bronze duplicate max, hand-size limit, removing most tutors, etc), which are the exact complaints generated by the MWU. Except now they'll be enshrined into the very fabric of the game, as opposed to an added element (e.g., create, specific high tempo cards) that can be balanced or removed.

Saying that we were in a fundamentally solid place pre-MWU is not necessarily a right statement TBH. It was a fine game for the time being, but not a fine game to expand upon by any means. The core of the game was designed for a singleplayer collectible card game, not for a multiplayer title. The coinflip was still a glaring issue where absolutely none seemed to came up with any half decent solution, despite the engine update the design space was still pretty limited. There is no mana in Gwent and most of the card abilities were used when played from hand (sometimes with a timer activation), the ability to re-use a card after playing from hand was extremely limited. These sort of core design lacking made it really hard to produce hundreds of new cards and new mechanics without hitting a block or without breaking the game in some way. I always used to think about this potential future issue before HC announcement. There was a few people who came up with threads regarding this and others ditched the argument by providing a few new ideas made by themselves in most cases. In that time it was a question of being able to produce hundreds... or even thousands of cards, coming up with few more ideas doesn't prove that the core is fine but a lot people never understood it.

It's true that there's no certainty whether HC will address these issues or will make the problems even more glaring but sooner or later CDPR would definitely hit the rock bottom and would realize that the game is not fundamentally in the right place. Their bad decisions in midwinter made them realize it faster but I think it's better in this way than understanding it 2 more years down the line that they can't progress with the game anymore. Some of the HC design decisions do look negative without seeing the other changes and even I am not really in favor of having 2 bronzes max. However, at least they are trying something without progressing further with a broken core and all we can do is wait to see whether they achieve success or not.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I'd rate the biggest issue as the approach taken with changes made to the game to address areas viewed as a problem. It's understandable a CCG was new territory for CDPR. Growing pains were expected. The real problem isn't whether questionable decisions or mistakes are made. It's how they adjust around those decisions.

There really has not been any backtracking for core mechanics. For instance, if change X gets added and it creates problems in another area the approach is to add on top to fix these new problems. This is an issue when one poor decision ends up with more poor decisions stacked on top of it. Let this concept run it's course for too long and you end up with a complete mess. By then "fixing" it is so convoluted the only real solution is to scrap it, go back to the drawing board and revamp the entire game. Oh, hello there Homecoming. It's so nice to meet you .

I have no idea how they evaluate the efficacy or positive/negatives of implemented changes. I don't know if they insist on going forward, and place very little consideration into the possibility of going backward (reverting changes), because it's "beta" and they're solely interested in testing different approaches (case and point, look at Ciri: Nova and then consider the 2 bronze HC change...). Either way, it appears from the outside looking in there is a lot of room for improvement here.

 

[Laveley]

Saying that we were in a fundamentally solid place pre-MWU is not necessarily a right statement TBH. It was a fine game for the time being, but not a fine game to expand upon by any means. The core of the game was designed for a singleplayer collectible card game, not for a multiplayer title. The coinflip was still a glaring issue where absolutely none seemed to came up with any half decent solution, despite the engine update the design space was still pretty limited. There is no mana in Gwent and most of the card abilities were used when played from hand (sometimes with a timer activation), the ability to re-use a card after playing from hand was extremely limited. These sort of core design lacking made it really hard to produce hundreds of new cards and new mechanics without hitting a block or without breaking the game in some way. I always used to think about this potential future issue before HC announcement. There was a few people who came up with threads regarding this and others ditched the argument by providing a few new ideas made by themselves in most cases. In that time it was a question of being able to produce hundreds... or even thousands of cards, coming up with few more ideas doesn't prove that the core is fine but a lot people never understood it.

It's true that there's no certainty whether HC will address these issues or will make the problems even more glaring but sooner or later CDPR would definitely hit the rock bottom and would realize that the game is not fundamentally in the right place. Their bad decisions in midwinter made them realize it faster but I think it's better in this way than understanding it 2 more years down the line that they can't progress with the game anymore. Some of the HC design decisions do look negative without seeing the other changes and even I am not really in favor of having 2 bronzes max. However, at least they are trying something without progressing further with a broken core and all we can do is wait to see whether they achieve success or not.

This notion that gwent has fundamentally "broken" mechanics is the biggest BS that i ever heard on gwent community. Its a notion that was spread by a famous streamer that already spread a lot of wrong notions about the game. The same streamer that said, for example, that all agile units would be good for the game. That create would be good for the game. That pretty much all the cdpr wrong decisions would be good for the game.


Gwent is different. Yes it is. Does that mean thats a broken game? Absolutely no.

You cited the coinflip problem. Coinflip problem doesnt have jackshitt to do with gwent fundamental mechanics. It only became what became by pure sheer incompetence of the developer team. Once upon a time coinflip wasnt a problem on gwent. Even the devs said it wasnt because there was no statistical gap between blue and red coin win ratios. But them the devs fucked up their own game and coin flip became a huge problem.

I could go on, but this is the story of this game. It had a solid base. A base that was slowly reaped apart. Now you say me that the game is broken and cant possibly work?

Seriously, give me CB gwent again. I could play that "broken" game for YEARS.

 

[sleepyhead062]

Gwent is different. Yes it is. Does that mean thats a broken game? Absolutely no.

Cool, nice to know your point of view.

 

[Laveley]

Cool, nice to know your point of view.

Sad that i cant say the same for yours.

 

[sleepyhead062]

Sad that i cant say the same for yours.

That's okay bud.

 

[Laveley]

That's okay bud.

Lmao, you know i'm just kidding, no disrespect...

 

[Khreygond]

I think most of the forum people would really like Closed Beta levels of Gwent with more balance simply.

CB has made me abandon the game when I ran into too many Scoia scorch spam and SK discard decks. But I think it had a level of complexity at least, beyond what we have now. The only slightly complex decks to play that can win sometimes in casual are Spies and Axemen, the latter being actually effective.

 

[r0verandom]

Why is "Viable deck variety" most voted?? There are like 30 viable decks right now. That is pretty good for card game in beta. Hearthstone in beta had like 10 decks maximum.

And more variety will come naturally with more cards. Also, more game modes would be nice.

What I don't see as an option, but I really want to see is more statistics, especially for Arena (win %, rankings, etc)