Project rebirth

[wonderboy870]

Disclaimer: this suggestion depends on the assumption that the devs have useage data on individual cards played. Or in the alternative they could acquire that knowledge with a patch.

So project rebirth is all about taking existing cards that get little to no usage and remaking them into something playable. It will also help bridge the gap between expansions or meta changing rebalances.

Step one: Every week the developers post a list of the ten least used cards in all of Gwent. They do so in a thread with a poll option.

Step Two: The online community votes on the ten cards for three days and the card with the most votes is selected for a redesign.

Step Three: Once a card is selected, the devs post their suggested change to the card, but so do the players. For two days people make suggestions and CDPR picks from among the three best player suggestions to advance alongside their own idea to final voting

Step Four: Players vote on the idea they like the best. After two days of voting the most popular result wins and the card is changed accordingly. The next week the process repeats.

For those who worry the player changes might imbalance the meta, if the devs decide or the community response makes clear that the change is detrimental to the overall health of Gwent, the voting can be removed and the devs can simply go back to their idea for the cards rebirth.

 

[4RM3D]

Whenever wild suggestions like these appear, I ask myself the question: "Why hasn't any other CCG done this already?". The usual answer is because it's a bad idea, regardless of how interesting it might look. Sometimes, however, the devs should try it to distinguish themselves, otherwise there never will be any innovation. This is not one of those times, unfortunately.

The idea is interesting, but there are two issues with this. First of all, it will be a nightmare to manage. I understand that you want to get the community involved, but this is too much work for too little pay-off. It's possible to let the top streamer help (re)design cards, as an alternative, though. Either way, it's a bad business decision for CDPR because of the next issue.

The biggest problem is that it works against the design of card games. From a business perspective, you can't keep redesigning cards. It doesn't generate any money. That's why expansions exist. Expansions always have a power creep because you cannot make new cards worse. This means that certain older cards will naturally fade out of existence. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Cards never being played is a bigger issue in Gwent than other CCG and it does lead to a more stale meta. However, solving this requires a different solution. I don't want to talk too much about it here, but I'll give a short explanation. When Homecoming came out, it broke the naturally flow of the game and it created a new base line. This made a lot of cards unplayable and, from that very moment, the whole game should have been rebalanced. Over time it did, like with artifacts. But, at some point, it's no longer feasible. We've crossed that like a while back. I rather see new amazing expansions that improve the game, than continue rebalancing old cards.

 

[wonderboy870]

Whenever wild suggestions like these appear, I ask myself the question: "Why hasn't any other CCG done this already?". The usual answer is because it's a bad idea, regardless of how interesting it might look. Sometimes, however, the devs should try it to distinguish themselves, otherwise there never will be any innovation. This is not one of those times, unfortunately.

The idea is interesting, but there are two issues with this. First of all, it will be a nightmare to manage. I understand that you want to get the community involved, but this is too much work for too little pay-off. It's possible to let the top streamer help (re)design cards, as an alternative, though. Either way, it's a bad business decision for CDPR because of the next issue.

The biggest problem is that it works against the design of card games. From a business perspective, you can't keep redesigning cards. It doesn't generate any money. That's why expansions exist. Expansions always have a power creep because you cannot make new cards worse. This means that certain older cards will naturally fade out of existing. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Cards never being played is a bigger issue in Gwent than other CCG and it does lead to a more stale meta. However, solving this requires a different solution. I don't want to talk too much about it here, but I'll give a short explanation. When Homecoming came out, it broke the naturally flow of the game and it created a new base line. This made a lot of cards unplayable and, from that very moment, the whole game should have been rebalanced. Over time it did, like with artifacts. But, at some point, it's no longer feasible. We've crossed that like a while back. I rather see new amazing expansions that improve the game, than continue rebalancing old cards.

I hear your points and they are well taken, but allow me to offer some counterpoints.

1. Increased web traffic to the official site or the creation of a new site explicitly for this feature allows for advertisements on the page. Profit is generated by number of views of the web page and giving the player base something to log into every week (sometimes more if they are voting on multiple things,) is a way to mitigate the cost while increasing revenue.

2. The amount of work involved in altering 52 cards a year seems minimal. The animation already exists for the premium variation. I have no clue how much actual coding goes into a single cards abilities and power level, but I cannot imagine it takes that long.

3. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The devs announced that four expansions is too much work per calendar year. This means we are looking at 2-3 in any given year. This means best case the meta is largely untouched for 4 months. That is a lot of down time. Eventually players get bored and leave until the next expansion comes out. This idea means essentially four new function cards per month, and roughly 16 in between the expansions. While not a total fix for the stale meta, it does at least give symptom relief.

4. The biggest problem as I see it is that the devs don’t communicate enough with the players. This system not only gets the community involved, it creates an ongoing dialogue with the player base. If it fails then it fails, but if it succeeds then not only does Gwent become a trend setter in the CCG world, but the player base actually becomes more invested in the game.

 

[4RM3D]

Redesigning the cards themselves is not the biggest time sink, but rather the process to get there. When you include the community, it does become more complex for the devs. Anyhow, it seems you are trying to kill two birds with one stone, but you missed both because you are trying a trick shot, instead of focusing on one.

The lack of communication is indeed an issue and there are varies ways to go about it. Having more RED involvement on the forums seems to be a pretty straightforward and easy solution. There are more ways, of course, but something is holding the devs back. We have to look at this first, before we can devise a solution. However, we lack the information to do so.

The other issue is the stale meta. Gwent faces more challenges here because, for example, the game is more consistent than other CCG. Any proper solution (that fixes the root of the problem) is probably going to take too much time because it requires a whole redesign. So, maybe we should focus on finding a long term solution that is feasible, but doesn't require much manpower to implement.

Thus, the question becomes: what's the easiest way to keep the meta in flux between expansions? A precondition should obviously be that it does not break the fundamentals of the game. For example, seasonal does exactly that (break the fundamentals), which is fine for a separate mode. Anyhow, that's a difficult question to answer. I did talk about a solution, a while back, though I also mentioned that it shouldn't be implemented like that.

 

[wonderboy870]

Redesigning the cards themselves is not the biggest time sink, but rather the process to get there. When you include the community, it does become more complex for the devs. Anyhow, it seems you are trying to kill two birds with one stone, but you missed both because you are trying a trick shot, instead of focusing on one.

The lack of communication is indeed an issue and there are varies ways to go about it. Having more RED involvement on the forums seems to be a pretty straightforward and easy solution. There are more ways, of course, but something is holding the devs back. We have to look at this first, before we can devise a solution. However, we lack the information to do so.

The other issue is the stale meta. Gwent faces more challenges here because, for example, the game is more consistent than other CCG. Any proper solution (that fixes the root of the problem) is probably going to take too much time because it requires a whole redesign. So, maybe we should focus on finding a long term solution that is feasible, but doesn't require much manpower to implement.

Thus, the question becomes: what's the easiest way to keep the meta in flux between expansions? A precondition should obviously be that it does not break the fundamentals of the game. For example, seasonal does exactly that (break the fundamentals), which is fine for a separate mode. Anyhow, that's a difficult question to answer. I did talk about a solution, a while back, though I also mentioned that it shouldn't be implemented like that.

I am sorry but I struggle to follow your reasoning. The devs lack of communication is not much of a mystery. In the early days of Gwent they missed every deadline they set. Patches, micro expansions, season end dates, etc... (not literally every single one, but every type and some repeatedly.) As a result, the devs have stopped imposing that kind of pressure on themselves. Add to that the majority of the feedback suggests discontent with the state of Gwent and trajectory the game is moving, and the devs are just beaten down and disinterested. We could see it on their faces and hear it in their voices during the last live stream. That is why despite promises never to let the game sit idle for 6 months again (after homecoming, or maybe midwinter I don’t remember which,) they did it again this year.

I went to your thread and saw your thought experiment, I just disagree with the premise. People don’t often play cards cause they like the underlying canon behind the character or the design of the premium version. Most people play to win. They play synergy cards that get the best results, especially in ranked. The exp bonuses offered through the faction challenge caused the casual meta to be significantly more diverse. I played more against SY in one week than in the 6 or 7 weeks I have been back combined. SK was far more common than NG and that was joyous too. That is your fix for casual. For the meta, give MMR bonuses for mixing it up with different leaders. Also give MMR bonuses for winning with less common leaders. In other words, a win with a net deck is worth quite a bit less than a win with an obscure one.

Back to my topic, the whole point of minor reworking of the dead cards is they can be made to support and reinforce existing archetypes. Take a dead card and make it a bandit. Take a dead card and give it shield or vitality. The community gets more interested by new content. The devs make more money off of advertising on a new site designed exclusively for this project. The time investment is minimum given that we are talking about 1 card a week/ 52 cards a year. The community also gets to give feedback through their suggestions which they know the devs will at least read (we don’t have anyway of knowing how many suggestions they read.)

Lastly, I acknowledge their is a potential for backfire with this idea. Some players may not like the changes. But, the devs have the ability to pull the plug any time. The only cost is opportunity cost. Given that the benefit is significant and tangible, I see it as worth the risk.

 

[4RM3D]

The devs lack of communication is not much of a mystery.

That's part of it, but there is more to it. Also, I am not just talking about official communication regarding updates, but also things like the Ask a Dev thread, which has gone silent.

[...] That is your fix for casual. For the meta, give MMR bonuses for mixing it up with different leaders.

Oh? The MMR Bonus System: Incentivize Players to Break from the Meta

I still wonder how much of an effect it will have, though.

 

[rrc]

...

Step Four: Players vote on the idea they like the best. After two days of voting the most popular result wins and the card is changed accordingly. The next week the process repeats.
...

Step Five: Wake up from the dream and play the game facing one of the 5 or 6 decks that are played over and over and over again in most of your games.

 

[wonderboy870]

Step Five: Wake up from the dream and play the game facing one of the 5 or 6 decks that are played over and over and over again in most of your games.

I know I am not as eloquent as MLJK, but dammit I have a dream too.

Post automatically merged: May 27, 2020

That's part of it, but there is more to it. Also, I am not just talking about official communication regarding updates, but also things like the Ask a Dev thread, which has gone silent.



Oh? The MMR Bonus System: Incentivize Players to Break from the Meta

I still wonder how much of an effect it will have, though.

Sadly the problem I raised their still exists. Newer players will be severely penalized. That said, I believe Gwent is in trouble. I think based on the clues available that Gwent is missing the profit margins and that is largely due to CDPR failing miserably to capitalize on the profit potential of Gwent. No adds on their website, poor communication with the players. Long periods of no changes to the meta and when they do make changes they often imbalance things. The state of patch 6.2 tells me either Covid is kicking their butts or the devs don’t care anymore about Gwent. Possibly both. Long story short. Project rebirth at least freshens things up a little every week. Maybe no one bothers to add the reimagined cards to their decks. But, people take notice of new cards and some people might find clever uses that get copied.

 

[Six-Sided-Prism]

Project Rebirth actually sounds like something that might be worth trying. While I had considered that CDPR could use Gwent players to rebalance many of the cards that just aren't playable (as well as the ones that are broken), I honestly never considered that they might be able to use advertising revenue to eliminate the cost of implementing the changes. I am a bit skeptical about what a majority of voters might support, but as long as the final say is always left to the actual developers, then I doubt Project Rebirth would make the game any less balanced than it already is. Plus, you never know what people are capable of; this might generate some truly fantastic ideas.