The only saving grace for Gwent

[Shabman]

..is sexy Meve. Or perhaps I just have a thing for ladies of queenly disposition.

In all seriousness, Thronebreaker is one big bravo from me. I originally bought it out of gratitude for all the good stuff the devs have given us in the past and kept playing because it's that good (to me) and because you can tell it was made with love. Some of that love extends to Gwent Multiplayer (or "Homecoming"), which has a better art style than any CCG out there that I am aware of.

Alas, this is where the comparisons stop.

I've been playing HC pretty much every day since it came out, trying to get into it, trying to make it work for me. But I must say that all my fears for this project have come to life, and have done so in a way even worse than I expected.

In no universe is this game better than even late beta and in no universe is it Gwent. It is basically like a demo version for what we had before. Why? Because everything is sooooo restricted.

- I am not gonna get into the debate again, about why 3 rows is better than 2, but you cannot seriously make the point that the game plays better on two rows or even the same. There's less row stacking vs row spreading decisions (because you have one less dimension to run into) to be made, rows are truly meaningless now beyond these little "place here get ability A, place there get ability B" mechanics - because you might as well put your units anywhere. Make power plays for big points, you will not escape Geralt: Igni, no matter which row you play in. Spread out your points, fall victim to horizontal damage (Regis, crushing trap, lacerate, etc.). Vertical effects are almost completely extinct and weather has become an absolute joke. It had to, because imagine the chaos proper weather would cause on two rows. Believe what you will, but moving to two rows will be the death of this game, and I WILL be back when it happens to say "I told you so".

- the playing for smaller points decision was also terrible. It just limits design options so much. Back in beta, you never knew what wonky combination your opponent was gonna pull next and hit you with, I don't know, 23 points out of the blue. It was a great deal more exciting than 2 point swings, and we mostly had the tempo options to deal with it. Imagine, with all the point variation before, I would still frequently tie, or lose and win by 1 or 2 points.

- deckbuilding is an absolutely sh*t experience, namely because of these provisions and because the game was rushed and there aren't enough synergies to choose from. Back in beta, you could come up with all these wild ideas, pick four golds that you wanted at the core of your strategy and add on top of that. Even silvers and bronzes had super-interesting effects - like when someone discovered you could Mandrake shield your units off Ocvist. Even in a climate of netdecks that people were always complaining about, unexpected little gems could come up and sometime even take over the meta - like ST Shupe, which wasn't taken seriously at first, but became very strong in time. I personally made an ambush deck combined with Crow's Eye - regardless of the fact that it was an incomplete archetype - and still managed to sail pretty effort free to Rank 18, where I hit a dead end. And that's just because I was really stubborn about including all the ambush cards (some of which were under performing) - I could easily have replaced some cards and turned that deck into something much more deadly. Right now I can't make anything original that will get me past new Rank 16. Before, you picked your ideas from a vast pool and made sure you had at least 25 cards, no more than 4 golds and 6 silvers. Now it's like picking them from a teaspoon, because you have to include all these 4 provision and 5 provision cards that you don't want!

Yes, it wasn't perfect before - but at least it felt like playing in a pool. It feels like playing in a little shot glass now. The game is so claustrophobia-inducing, I can barely believe it.

I've deleted all my decks, and am a hair's breadth away from deleting the game.

Love you CDPR, but this new Gwent is a truly terrible experience for me, and I sincerely hate it. I do not believe the game will survive more than a year if lessons are not learned and a positive approach is implemented, but I wish you luck nonetheless.

Now I think I'm gonna go and play all the Gwent quests in Witcher 3 and feel better. Only heartbreak lies ahead with online Gwent, I'm afraid.

 

[4RM3D]

In no universe is this game better than even late beta and in no universe is it Gwent. [...] Because everything is sooooo restricted.

"Homecoming is not Gwent", that's the usual criticism. Stating this also means restricting yourself to not look beyond Gwent. It's not that I don't understand, because I do. But it's a pretty dead end in terms of discussion value. As to whether Homecoming is better or worse than Gwent is a different matter. Homecoming does some things better and other things less so. It's a diamond in the rough that still needs polishing, besides the fact some players rather had a gold bar.

I am not gonna get into the debate again, about why 3 rows is better than 2, but you cannot seriously make the point that the game plays better on two rows or even the same.

Or worse. Let's first give rows some actual meaning, then we'll talk.

the playing for smaller points decision was also terrible. It just limits design options so much.

In beta, power swings got out of hand. Ironically, these still exist in Homecoming. Moreso, if you can setup your pieces and not (or only partially) get disrupted. Yeah, you can dislike it, but it still doesn't limit design options (thanks to the provision system).

deckbuilding is an absolutely sh*t experience, namely because of these provisions and because the game was rushed and there aren't enough synergies to choose from.

The provision system is probably the best thing that has happened to Gwent because now, for the first time, cards can be fully tweaked. That isn't to say the system is perfect, but it's still better than the old one.

As for the lack of synergies, that's true. On the one hand, archetypes is what give factions their identity. On the other hand, the archetypes we had in Gwent were mostly too obvious and constricting. Gwent is like playing a RPG with predefined party members, where you can only select which members you want, while in Homecoming you have to fine-tune each party member in order to have them work together more efficiently. I suspect that with the coming expansions, faction identity is slowly coming back. Because having more cards means having more options available to create a themed deck.

Now I think I'm gonna go and play all the Gwent quests in Witcher 3 and feel better.

And remember how broken the singleplayer version was with spy and weather spam. :unsure: Well, it's a mini-game in another game, so it's allowed, I guess.

 

[Shabman]

"Homecoming is not Gwent", that's the usual criticism. Stating this also means restricting yourself to not look beyond Gwent. It's not that I don't understand, because I do. But it's a pretty dead end in terms of discussion value. As to whether Homecoming is better or worse than Gwent is a different matter. Homecoming does some things better and other things less so. It's a diamond in the rough that still needs polishing, besides the fact some players rather had a gold bar.


Or worse. Let's first give rows some actual meaning, then we'll talk.


In beta, power swings got out of hand. Ironically, these still exist in Homecoming. Moreso, if you can setup your pieces and not (or only partially) get disrupted. Yeah, you can dislike it, but it still doesn't limit design options (thanks to the provision system).


The provision system is probably the best thing that has happened to Gwent because now, for the first time, cards can be fully tweaked. That isn't to say the system is perfect, but it's still better than the old one.

As for the lack of synergies, that's true. On the one hand, archetypes is what give factions their identity. On the other hand, the archetypes we had in Gwent were mostly too obvious and constricting. Gwent is like playing a RPG with predefined party members, where you can only select which members you want, while in Homecoming you have to fine-tune each party member in order to have them work together more efficiently. I suspect that with the coming expansions, faction identity is slowly coming back. Because having more cards means having more options available to create a themed deck.


And remember how broken the singleplayer version was with spy and weather spam. :unsure: Well, it's a mini-game in another game, so it's allowed, I guess.

See, you can try to explain it away any way you want, but it's not going to make the game more fun for me. You will see in time, that my predictions will come true, especially with things like provisions, 2 rows, etc..

In the meantime, I know there are those who are having fun with this new Gwent, perhaps you included. And I'm not mad at that at all. On the contrary. But all these arguments about how HC is better than beta Gwent...not gonna make me enjoy it more. And what a lot of people don't get is that fun is the bottom line when it comes to games.

 

[4RM3D]

But all these arguments about how HC is better than beta Gwent...not gonna make me enjoy it more. And what a lot of people don't get is that fun is the bottom line when it comes to games.

I actually didn't specifically say that Homecoming is better. Different, yes, but, better? Matter of opinion. Actually, thinking more about it. CDPR might have changed a bit too much. The provision system is important. Maybe that was enough to make a difference. Heh, who knows, it's all hypothetical as this point.

What is true, is that you should have fun.

 

[jgolden234]

I actually didn't specifically say that Homecoming is better. Different, yes, but, better? Matter of opinion. Actually, thinking more about it. CDPR might have changed a bit too much. The provision system is important. Maybe that was enough to make a difference. Heh, who knows, it's all hypothetical as this point.

What is true, is that you should have fun.

I agree. If a game is not fun, than it is not a game, it is a chore. Maybe the December patch will help, but if two rows is a big deal for you than balancing may simply not be enough to give you that good feeling. I am personally enjoying it. I, however, was dying a little with the content drought, so Ian still wrapped up in the novelty and the spakrly graphics

 

[kAiSeR007]

About Thronebreaker, I'm very dissapointed.

If you have read the books, the story is very enjoyable, however I've never played a game as easy as this. Even in hard difficulty, it's a plain joke. I ended with +60k gold and +20k wood, with all the buildings done and all the cards bought, never lost a standard battle.

I've heard somewhere that it is a bug, and the difficulty will be patched. Well, for the kind of game Thronebreaker is, it's a expensive game. And releasing a game with major bugs like this, is well... dissapointing. Even if the difficulty is fixed, I doubt many people will play it over again, once you have gone through the story, it's pointless.

Even a partial refund will make sense.

 

[devivre]

I've heard somewhere that it is a bug, and the difficulty will be patched.

The difficulty is not a bug. But there will be a new difficulty setting.

 

[kAiSeR007]

The difficulty is not a bug. But there will be a new difficulty setting.

Didn't knew, thanks.

Anyway, even though I enjoyed the story very much, the low difficulty was really an issue for me. It made the game somehow boring, besides the puzzles, the short and standard battles were just way tooo easy. There was no need to change the deck even once (maybe at the end with Aep Dahy), which made even reading what many of the enemy cards were supossed to do, a loss of time.

The background story, very good, the cutscenes, the dialogues, great. But playablity wise? Very poorly implemented. An expensive game all things considered.

But enough of this, there's already a thread for Thronebreaker issues

 

[Esmer]

"Homecoming is not Gwent", that's the usual criticism.

No. The usual criticism is "Homecoming is not fun to play because of..." then a long list of issues follows.

I believe Shabman's story is true for the majority of old Gwent community. And it has a few main points:

- bought Thronebreaker to support CDPR and say thanks for how generous Gwent is
- loved Thronebreaker, but disappointed in Homecoming, because these new mechanics work perfectly in single player, but not in multiplayer
- finished Thronebreaker, uninstalled Gwent, still has the memories of Gwent beta

 

[4RM3D]

No. The usual criticism is "Homecoming is not fun to play because of..."

Things that Gwent supposedly did have, which leads to Homecoming is not Gwent.

In all seriousness, though, it's not just that Homecoming is not Gwent, but it's usually one of the main points.

 

[ThorinTheGrey]

@Shabman

Hello, I feel exactly the same as you describe in your post, maybe worse. I liked thronebreaker (but not how easy it was).

But Gwent HC... I have been playing Gwent since it first came out in its early stages. I have been in the top 200 a few times and played pro ladder but I knew there were some things that needed fixing so I eagerly awaited HC (although with some fear that they were gonna screw some things up).

I have been trying to play this game alot the past month and it PAINS me that I cant get into it. Like you say, deckbuilding feels empty, constricted. It feels like I am tricked into believing Im brewing a deck but in reality there is nothing to work with.

The provision system seems like a good turn for balancing issues, but so far all it does is LIMIT the way you can build decks. And I can already see they missuse this system to 'nerf' cards like golden froth. Its 15 provision now, instead of just nerfing it hte right way by making it less pwoerfull, it is now a card that makes you deck more bland if you want to include it. What I am trying to say: they will 'nerf' cards into unplayable provision ranges. Thats not fun, thats bad design.

At this point, I am getting the feeling that getting this game 'right' is even more difficult than before, I lost faith in CDPR and just want old Gwent back

 

[Shabman]

@Shabman

Hello, I feel exactly the same as you describe in your post, maybe worse. I liked thronebreaker (but not how easy it was).

But Gwent HC... I have been playing Gwent since it first came out in its early stages. I have been in the top 200 a few times and played pro ladder but I knew there were some things that needed fixing so I eagerly awaited HC (although with some fear that they were gonna screw some things up).

I have been trying to play this game alot the past month and it PAINS me that I cant get into it. Like you say, deckbuilding feels empty, constricted. It feels like I am tricked into believing Im brewing a deck but in reality there is nothing to work with.

The provision system seems like a good turn for balancing issues, but so far all it does is LIMIT the way you can build decks. And I can already see they missuse this system to 'nerf' cards like golden froth. Its 15 provision now, instead of just nerfing it hte right way by making it less pwoerfull, it is now a card that makes you deck more bland if you want to include it. What I am trying to say: they will 'nerf' cards into unplayable provision ranges. Thats not fun, thats bad design.

At this point, I am getting the feeling that getting this game 'right' is even more difficult than before, I lost faith in CDPR and just want old Gwent back

I feel the same way. All you had to pay attention to before is choose your golds and silvers carefully (either as a core for your deck or as support for the cool synergies in your bronzes), and then you just chose cards that made sense together.

I feel like I have to put so much garbage in my deck because of provisions now, which is not going to do anything for my synergy other than damge this for 1-2-3 points or boost that for the same amount. And best believe those rubbish cards are going to come back to bite you in the a** if you so much as think about mulligan-ing in the first 2 rounds.

I am exaggerating a little, but it's almost like every worthy effect or unit is a gold now (or a super-high-provision bronze), while the rest of the bronzes feel like you're shopping at a thrift store, looking for that one 4 or 5 provision card which is not crap, and which you're not including because it makes sense with your deck, but because you MATHEMATICALLY have to.

Who on earth thought this would be fun?

You are absolutely right. Instead of actually balancing cards, they slapped on this provisioning system (which for reasons which totally go over my head) everyone seems to believe in, so they can have a master switch to tweak. But the actual effect of it is exactly what you said:

- card A over-performs
- provisions increased
- if you want to include this card, it's going to cost you X garbage cards that you must put in your deck
- no one plays card A anymore

Whoever thinks it's possible to find the sweet spot with provisioning, they are living in a different dimension. Tweaking numbers like this only works if you have a meaningful choice to make. "Oh snap, if I want to keep this super-powerful unit or effect in my deck, I'm going to have to let go of one or two of my stronger CORE units, and use other, cheaper CORE units that do something for my deck." Not "oh if I want to keep it, I have to put garbage in my deck that doesn't work with anything".

I know it's intentional, I know the devs wanted to get rid of big, bad archetypes. I know they wanted to get rid of too much control over your deck and increase the luck factor. It's all part of catering to a wider (hopefully more profitable) audience.

They will kill this game if they keep going this way.

 

[4RM3D]

it's almost like every worthy effect or unit is a gold now (or a super-high-provision bronze), while the rest of the bronzes feel like you're shopping at a thrift store, looking for that one 4 or 5 provision card which is not crap, and which you're not including because it makes sense with your deck, but because you MATHEMATICALLY have to.
[...]
Instead of actually balancing cards, they slapped on this provisioning system (which for reasons which totally go over my head) everyone seems to believe in, so they can have a master switch to tweak.

Disclaimer: this is not about defending Homecoming, but merely the concept of a provision system.

You have provided two arguments:
1. You have to put in too many junk cards in your deck to compensate for the expensive cards you want to use.
2. CDPR should have balanced the old cards, instead of (getting lazy and) using the provision system to tweak stuff.

About the first point, I understand. This seems to be a result of how players think and how the provision system works. Players want to put in nice (gold) cards only to find out they've spent too much food and only have scraps left for some junk cards. Instead of going for a "min-max", where the cards are either at the bottom or at the top, the provision costs should be spread out more evenly, in a deck you're trying to build. This, however, might feel counter-intuitive, especially when it appears the provision system pushes you into one direction without an alternative route. I cannot blame the players for this feeling, but it's also not the fault of the provision system.

As for the second point, that was one of the reasons Gwent was getting stuck. With the old system, all cards had to be balanced based on their respective rarity. This does indeed mean that every bronze feels at least usable in your deck and that you have the freedom to choose which you want to include. On the flip side, trying to keep everything balanced is an arduous task. And even if that was possible, it would still limit the design space too much because every new card needs to have the same "power level". The devs figured this out and to be able to release new expansions, the provision system was introduced.

The provision system is one of the highlights of Homecoming. The irony is that not everyone sees it the same way. Even the good things about Homecoming seems to generate quite a backlash.

 

[ThorinTheGrey]

Disclaimer: this is not about defending Homecoming, but merely the concept of a provision system.

You have provided two arguments:
1. You have to put in too many junk cards in your deck to compensate for the expensive cards you want to use.
2. CDPR should have balanced the old cards, instead of (getting lazy and) using the provision system to tweak stuff.

About the first point, I understand. This seems to be a result of how players think and how the provision system works. Players want to put in nice (gold) cards only to find out they've spent too much food and only have scraps left for some junk cards. Instead of going for a "min-max", where the cards are either at the bottom or at the top, the provision costs should be spread out more evenly, in a deck you're trying to build. This, however, might feel counter-intuitive, especially when it appears the provision system pushes you into one direction without an alternative route. I cannot blame the players for this feeling, but it's also not the fault of the provision system.

As for the second point, that was one of the reasons Gwent was getting stuck. With the old system, all cards had to be balanced based on their respective rarity. This does indeed mean that every bronze feels at least usable in your deck and that you have the freedom to choose which you want to include. On the flip side, trying to keep everything balanced is an arduous task. And even if that was possible, it would still limit the design space too much because every new card needs to have the same "power level". The devs figured this out and to be able to release new expansions, the provision system was introduced.

The provision system is one of the highlights of Homecoming. The irony is that not everyone sees it the same way. Even the good things about Homecoming seems to generate quite a backlash.

First point: What you say about the provisions could be true, but this requires alot better balancing on the CDPR part then, because currently I feel like it constricts me so hard deckbuilding isn't even fun.
And I honestly dont see how their current game will be easier to balance, they just added more multipliers to the mix which makes it harder imo. And knowing CDPR who are super slow in balancing certain cards, it will be a drag.

Second point: New cards dont always have to beat older cards in power level, just look at MTG. What you need in this scenario is a standard setting with card rotations. Also, you can make new effects that work well in ceretain scenarios, and not just slap points onto a card. I feel alot of the current mechanics (like order) could have been perfectly implemented in old Gwent.

I also raise a third point, my personal frustration: after years of beta, they release a completely different game. What was the point? They learned their game wasn't what they wanted/didn't make enough money? I feel like they discarded years of progress on a gamble that might ruin all of Gwent.

 

[4RM3D]

First point: What you say about the provisions could be true, but this requires alot better balancing on the CDPR part then, because currently I feel like it constricts me so hard deckbuilding isn't even fun.

Maybe the constrictions are too harsh. Though, Homecoming just came out and a December patch is already in the making. Over time, the values might move towards a better ideal.

And I honestly dont see how their current game will be easier to balance, they just added more multipliers to the mix which makes it harder imo. And knowing CDPR who are super slow in balancing certain cards, it will be a drag.

Balancing is never easy. Regardless, having more tools available to tweak stuff is usually a good thing. Nevertheless, one shouldn't go overboard, but with just the provision system, I don't think it has become overly complex.

Second point: New cards dont always have to beat older cards in power level, just look at MTG. What you need in this scenario is a standard setting with card rotations.

First off all, there aren't enough cards yet for having a rotation. Secondly, MtG is abusing that system to make more money. Incidentally, Hearthstone is abusing it for the same reason and because the devs have become lazy. While a rotation system could eventually work, I see no good reason to implement it, given the downside is bigger.

I also raise a third point, my personal frustration: after years of beta, they release a completely different game. What was the point? They learned their game wasn't what they wanted/didn't make enough money? I feel like they discarded years of progress on a gamble that might ruin all of Gwent.

If Gwent wasn't working out for whatever reason, it's logical to try to change it. The devs might have gone overboard here, but at least they were still willing to take a risk and try to rebuild the game into something new, instead of letting it slowly wither away. It's a shame that it took two years of development to realize this. Not everything was a waste, though. Regardless, it was a risky endeavor and I wonder if that risk was worth it. We shall see.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

About the first point, I understand. This seems to be a result of how players think and how the provision system works. Players want to put in nice (gold) cards only to find out they've spent too much food and only have scraps left for some junk cards. Instead of going for a "min-max", where the cards are either at the bottom or at the top, the provision costs should be spread out more evenly, in a deck you're trying to build. This, however, might feel counter-intuitive, especially when it appears the provision system pushes you into one direction without an alternative route. I cannot blame the players for this feeling, but it's also not the fault of the provision system.

Nah, it's not that at all. I get what you're saying. The provision system does feel restrictive though. You might want to run a slightly different gold or bronze card but because it costs 1 more provision you now have to retool the top, middle or bottom of the deck to fit it into the mix. This happens all over the deck builder for every single faction. It becomes a bit of a chore to build a deck. The old system, despite the flaws, was far more intuitive. You had 3 card tiers, knew what to expect from each and more flexibility when building. The structure not only made it more fluid to put together a new concept but made it a hell of a lot easier to search through the cards.

I don't think spreading the provisions out necessarily makes sense all of the time either. Some decks perform better when the top and bottom are heavy. Others perform better when you take more of a middle ground approach, and do as you've described above. I cannot imagine how new players handle it. It's... intimidating.

As for the second point, that was one of the reasons Gwent was getting stuck. With the old system, all cards had to be balanced based on their respective rarity. This does indeed mean that every bronze feels at least usable in your deck and that you have the freedom to choose which you want to include. On the flip side, trying to keep everything balanced is an arduous task. And even if that was possible, it would still limit the design space too much because every new card needs to have the same "power level". The devs figured this out and to be able to release new expansions, the provision system was introduced.

I'd argue this is because many of the unique aspects were slowly stripped away. I don't mean "fun" mechanics either. Although, I wouldn't consider many cards with the label "fun" as truly fun. Annoying would be more fitting . I mean stuff like weather immunity, agility, gold immunity, etc. This stuff provided unique attributes to distinguish cards from one another. When everything was reduced to synergies and numbers, yes, it probably became too difficult to distinguish the cards.

If the argument is the provision system improves balance because it provides more dials I fail to see why these unique attributes didn't do the very same thing. I don't think the provision system necessarily improves balance anyway. Broken cards are broken cards. Jacking up the provisions to make them less appealing is not a great way to fix problems. In that case the cards simply stop seeing play due to an over-reaction or it has no effect due to an under-reaction. That isn't balancing. It's a cheap, quick fix mentality.

Perhaps if the provision system vs card power made logical sense in the majority of places it would be fine. It does not right now. Maybe the December patch will address it.

 

[4RM3D]

The old system, despite the flaws, was far more intuitive. You had 3 card tiers, knew what to expect from each and more flexibility when building. The structure not only made it more fluid to put together a new concept but made it a hell of a lot easier to search through the cards.

True, that was one of the upsides.

If the argument is the provision system improves balance because it provides more dials I fail to see why these unique attributes didn't do the very same thing. I don't think the provision system necessarily improves balance anyway.

The provision system has more dials to fine-tune the balance. But that doesn't automatically makes it better. And yes, there were unique attributes, but those are sometimes impossible to properly give a number (power level). How much do you pay for a card being immune? How much for on deploy vs order vs zeal? Even with the provision system, you still need to have the proper numbers. All the system gives is the opportunity to create stronger and weaker cards, which allows for new mechanics and abilities. As it stands now, the provisions are under-utilized. However, the system itself gives hope for the future.

Broken cards are broken cards. Jacking up the provisions to make them less appealing is not a great way to fix problems. In that case the cards simply stop seeing play due to an over-reaction or it has no effect due to an under-reaction. That isn't balancing. It's a cheap, quick fix mentality.

In the end, provisions shouldn't be the only means to balance cards. What CDPR did with the artifact nerf is hopefully just a quick fix. Regardless, the system does give more flexibility and it allows for a wider variety of cards.