Shout out to the Devs

[Amaroc]

Dear Devs,

Since the ending of the open beta – actually, since the infamous midwinter update – I had a difficult relationship with Gwent. What a ride it has been, an emotional rollercoaster. We lost many players, gained many anew. Famous streamers left, new content creater may arise.


I for one sincerely hope, Gwent will regain it’s former pull. You guys out there never gave up on this amazing idea that is this game. Your artwork is exceptional, your community outreach unparelled. You still have a vision and I hope, Gwent will one day have a professional esports scene as big has heartstone or even beyond. The potential is there, let’s unleash it together.


You deserve this prays, but there is still a long way ahead of us. Please don’t let us down and make smart (gameplay) decisions from now on. (uniteless decks* cough*)


Sincerely, a voice from the community.


What does the rest think? Care to agree? Comment below.

 

[Riven-Twain]

I agree that Gwent has always held intriguing potentials as an extension of the Witcher's world, especially aesthetically. It has been quite a remarkable journey watching it transform from Wild Hunt's mini-game into a wildly competitive on-line phenomenon. And, to their credit, indeed, the REDs haven't given up on the project, despite fluctuations in the game's popularity.

It's had quite a few rough patches, ay, and, in my opinion, there's still plenty of room for improvement and balancing. There's much I'd enjoy to see change, particularly with reference to my favoured faction, and Thronebreaker. . . . However, all in all -- and despite being a staunch supporter of Dwarven Dice Poker -- I'll admit I'm rather fond of many aspects of the Cards.

For my part, I wish both players and developers alike all the best moving forward!

 

[rrc]

Despite my firm belief that the Devs show favorism to SK (and MO) and give a blind-eye to the state of my favorite faction, I still have huge respect and love for the game and the company. Against all odds after the release of HC when everything looked murky, Gwent bounced back and became better and better. It takes huge courage to do those changes that came in HC when they clearly knew the community would hate it at first. (Similar thing happened in Clash of Clans a few years back when the game's economy was changed and getting the Town Hall destroyed will not give the Shield. People used to just keep their Town Hall in a corner so that they are always in Shield. It helped both attackers and defenders; attackers get the trophy to rank up, and defenders get their resources safe and always in shield. CoC changed so that getting only the TH destroyed will not give shield and will make you lose some resource too. There was a huge outlash from the community. People threatened to quit the game, based it, called it selfish and money hungry, all those things, but the game stood by its choice. In the long run, it was for the best for the game and for the community/players. Before the change, to get a layout with a good loot would take 10-15 mins of giving next, but now, it is much faster. The reason I am telling the story is, sometimes, the company has to do something totally against the playersbase wishes for the good of the game and indirectly mainly will only benefit the players. It takes huge courage to do that. The players will not understand the reasons behind it and may just falsely judge that it is to make it Pay2Win, but in fact, it is a blessing in disguise for the players only). Players who hated it and quit the game, came back and even gave feedback that Gwent in the current state feel better than how it was in OB.

Whenever Jason speaks in the dev stream, you can actually see the huge passion and love he has for the game. It gives you a lot of hope that things will only get better. So, yes, a Huge Shoutout from me for the devs (shouting that "I love you guys and the game but please keep the game fair for all factions and treat all factions the same")!

 

[hachri80]

I started shortly after the infamous midwinter-patch and really enjoyed the game most of the time. The game is getting better and better and in my opinion has huge potential compared to Beta Gwent.

I still like to see more synergies added and some stronger archtypes that don´t depend on just adding the strongest cards of each faction in your deck. If the development of the game continues as lately the future is bright .

 

[Guest 4339135]

Dear Devs,

Since the ending of the open beta – actually, since the infamous midwinter update – I had a difficult relationship with Gwent. What a ride it has been, an emotional rollercoaster. We lost many players, gained many anew. Famous streamers left, new content creater may arise.


I for one sincerely hope, Gwent will regain it’s former pull. You guys out there never gave up on this amazing idea that is this game. Your artwork is exceptional, your community outreach unparelled. You still have a vision and I hope, Gwent will one day have a professional esports scene as big has heartstone or even beyond. The potential is there, let’s unleash it together.


You deserve this prays, but there is still a long way ahead of us. Please don’t let us down and make smart (gameplay) decisions from now on. (uniteless decks* cough*)


Sincerely, a voice from the community.


What does the rest think? Care to agree? Comment below.

The devs have shown with the release of homecoming, that they don't have the competence to put things on the right track....it was a desaster. And instead of solving the problems, they have veiled them and have drawn the attention of the players to other things, like the CC expansion or the seasonal mode. Now they haunt the game, for example --> no unit decks. They didn't solved the artifact problem til now and we see what happens.
Furthermore, the factor 'luck' is a too big one in the game at the moment, the drawing of cards is very inconsitent (SK had a big advantage in the last seasons because of this), it's time that it is easier to get your cards and facilitate skill.
Another thing is the going first/second problematic, in many cases it's a huge disadvantage going first. TA is not really helpful.
Then the matchmaking still seems not to be fair, another thing that needs a rework.
And finally, the absurd nerf and patch philosophy of CDPR. Many cards (like Sihil or Witchers) were nerfed til it's uselessness...I don't know why it is not possible to find a reasonable way for card changes. In contrast to this are still cards existing, that urgently need a change (Isbel is still a way to cheat, or the annoying Marauders). Then the fact that cards from some factions are inherently stronger than from others (especially SK gets better cards by nature).
The list is endless, so I think it's time for a change.

 

[hachri80]

While I agree that the game has issues, I don´t think that they are that gamebreaking like you mentioned. Also luck isn´t that big of a factor. If you have multiple cards in your deck that work together it is usually fine. If you are able to always draw the needed cards it gets boring. Consistancy was a big problem of beta Gwent and still is in Skellige. If you are able to draw your complete deck the matches start to feel all the same. SK was so consistant before the last patch that there was little diversity in the played decklists. It was all the thinning cards plus strong neutral removal plus 2 warrior cards and was called a warrior deck.

Problem with the witcher trio was that it was too good and consistent and therefore included in every deck. If you look at Monster decks after the Homecoming release, about 15 - 18 cards were always the same. CDPR tried several nerfs on theese cards but they were still autoincluded. With the provision system they created a tool to buff or nerf cards a little bit without destroying them outright, so I don´t agree that it is absurd.
Right now we have a far greater diversity in decks at least at the lower ranks that I call home . So in my opinion the game is constantly getting better.

 

[nedders]

While I agree that the game has issues, I don´t think that they are that gamebreaking like you mentioned. Also luck isn´t that big of a factor. If you have multiple cards in your deck that work together it is usually fine. If you are able to always draw the needed cards it gets boring. Consistancy was a big problem of beta Gwent and still is in Skellige. If you are able to draw your complete deck the matches start to feel all the same. SK was so consistant before the last patch that there was little diversity in the played decklists. It was all the thinning cards plus strong neutral removal plus 2 warrior cards and was called a warrior deck.

No, the problem isn't variety - the problem about luck is FAIRNESS. Goodness knows I've complained enough, so apologies once again, but it seems ludicrous to me that I would face a deck that draws all of its' top 15 cards when I have my 1, 2 or 3 largest provs still in the deck. That is what is wrong with matchmaking.

Problem with the witcher trio was that it was too good and consistent and therefore included in every deck. If you look at Monster decks after the Homecoming release, about 15 - 18 cards were always the same. CDPR tried several nerfs on theese cards but they were still autoincluded. With the provision system they created a tool to buff or nerf cards a little bit without destroying them outright, so I don´t agree that it is absurd.
Right now we have a far greater diversity in decks at least at the lower ranks that I call home . So in my opinion the game is constantly getting better.

The problem here is they got rid of mulligan blacklisting AND shrank the hand size down. At the same time, they brought in a prov system instead of bronze/silver/gold - decent cards cost a lot, so people had to "fill up" with bronze crap, the balance isn't really there, and there are FAR TOO MANY situational cards, which is absurd when you have so little control over your deck. I mean, Isengrim? Morvudd? There's loads of examples where cards just aren't getting value, so you don't see them. Who plays a Pellar? Anybody ever seen the witcher that "destroys a beast"? Dandelion:Vainglory anybody?

Thinning three cards became so valuable everybody had to use the witcher trio - they then nerfed it to oblivion but still did absolutely sod all about the thinning issue. The thing is, if people had more control over a balanced selection of mid-range cards, you could encourage lots more variety. At the moment Golds can be Speartip or Jonny! There's a handful of viable decks, a lot of them unitless, and that means there's something fundamentally wrong with the game.

 

[mzeebra]

While I agree that the game has issues, I don´t think that they are that gamebreaking like you mentioned. Also luck isn´t that big of a factor..

I agree, except the issue of the special cards/no units kind of decks. It is a critical issue, and the only one. It's just plain bad for the game, and annoys and bores many players.

 

[hachri80]

Thinning three cards became so valuable everybody had to use the witcher trio - they then nerfed it to oblivion but still did absolutely sod all about the thinning issue. The thing is, if people had more control over a balanced selection of mid-range cards, you could encourage lots more variety. At the moment Golds can be Speartip or Jonny! There's a handful of viable decks, a lot of them unitless, and that means there's something fundamentally wrong with the game.

I think you have a good point stating that we need more viable mid-range cards to get more value from bronzes. With CC we got some like the svalblod priest, cintrian knight or cintrian spellweaver. OK, the first one can become a powerhouse the later two are solid . It really would be cool to see more bronzes that synergies with other cards like squires that get stronger when played adjacent to a knight or hand knights a shield when played beside the squire. Or a shieldbearer that can protect other units beside him (taunt mechanic). I´d also like to see wheater effects differ from just dealing damage. The fog synergy with foglets in beta gwent was really cool. Fog could for example halve or prevent damage taken from that row. Frost could deny movement or stop units to execute orders as long as the effect is active. So yes there is room for improvement. And no-unit-decks suck.

Having said that I still enjoy the game very much right now. I´m a casual gamer, rank 13 right now. Yesterday I played a Detlaff vampire deck with crimson curse and really had fun. I played against Eithne control, Ardal tactics, Jan Calveit soldier/value, Demavend engine and even an Arnjolf deck. Most games I enjoyed and surprisingly won about 60 % of them. Thats why I think that the game is really in a good state right now.

 

[mzeebra]

Most games I enjoyed and surprisingly won about 60 % of them. Thats why I think that the game is really in a good state right now.

You're right. The game is generally in a good state. Regarding the witcher trio, I think it was an overkill. They basically took them out of the game entirely. They were clearly overused before, I personally never used them. My feeling is that they did the change due to Lippy/discard deck and double witcher trio/roche usage from that deck.

I think that's a shame, the Witcher trio belong in the game, but sure, not as much as it was before. But simply adjusting the provisions would have taken care of that. I think CDPR need to re-evaluate the Witcher trio+Roach as an independent set of cards that need to have the correct value and correct provisions as a "single play" set. The current value is not correct, nor was the previous. A power of 3 is not that bad. But 12 points on the board+thinning in the same move, and roach as a standalone card, what value should that have? How many provisions should that cost?

It's not a critical issue, just a bit disappointing that they went from being overused to not used at all. Somewhere in between would have been preferable, no?

Only thing that is not in a good state in the game atm and quite critically so is the special cards decks. Aside from that, as you say, the game is in a good state in general. Sure, small adjustments are necessary etc, but that doesn't hurt the general state.

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Dear Devs,

What does the rest think? Care to agree? Comment below.

I stopped playing some time around open beta, not because I disliked the game though. I rejoined once during the phoenix mini quest, and wish I got to do the content they had included (the single player puzzles where you unlocked the heroes, and the dwarf and vampire mini story -- hope they bring these back somehow).

I'm back now shortly after Crimson Curse started, and I like the new homecoming style. I feel like there are a lot of draws, but you learn to play with these new rules in mind.

I hope they keep updating/improving the game. I think they can add more "hearthstony" cards (like shupe's day off) since in these online card games, you can do a lot with rng and card creation that you can't in physical card games.

I would also love to see more cards get different effects based on the row they hit. Give them a main stronger effect, but if the situation dictates, allow for them to be placed on the other row for the other effect. It would allow for more decisions, more flexibility.

I'm looking forward to picking up Thronebreaker, and I'll probably get the preorder package for their next release (wish I had that crimson cardback, but oh well).

 

[StrykerxS77x]

The game is not doing well considering everything it has gone through and all of the cards added. I seriously wonder if the game was better before homecoming than it is currently.

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Not sure what you mean not doing well but I disagree. I liked the meta this month, nothing felt overwhelmingly overpowered and while aq and svalblod were prevalent, they certainly didn't dominate.
Every day it seemed like I saw something new.

I played in beta and returned last month. The game feels better to me now