Jobs Support Register

Things I wanted to say for a week or two

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
They left us 6months in the dark without even consulting playerbase, and those months were pure misery against hordes of braindead alchemy and emyr handbuff, excuse me for being full with negativity but all i asked were small nerfs, like -1 to viper, cdpr did nothing
I'm fine with negativity, although I may disagree with it, as long as it doesn't replace reality in the eyes of the critic. And it has to be genuine.
Post automatically merged:

I am not polarised, and I provided a lot of feedback on these forums with explanations why I think a certain change is good or bad. So my question stands: what more can be done?
Forming a untied... front, if I may. I mean, if both sides will agree on certain things and present them in a civil matter... if that gets dismissed (not saying implemented but thought of and prob answered why it isn't plausible), then I don't know what to say :)
But imo a bit more time than a month is needed to accumulate and sort real tendencies.
As for the specific point of no communications from CDPR, I see nothing specific here. The only things we got are Burza's replies to one specific thread. Pawel had 41 posts since Homecoming release, and his last message was on November, 27. Then he went on vacation. Great timing, I have to say!
To me, I wouldn't read toom uch into that. 6 months for complete overhaul, somebody had a lot of overtime at CDPR. And every person deserves a few days of vacation regardless of his occupation. Xmas would've been worse...
Post automatically merged:

Anyways, the point is: if your idea of "working together" is us renouncing what we love about the game and helping you make the game YOU like evolve, you can keep your peace offering. No thanks.
No, the point is accepting reality on both sides. But apparently, it's not achievable in some cases. Windmills are still there...
 
Last edited:
No, the point is accepting reality on both sides. But apparently, it's not achievable in some cases. Windmills are still there...
Accepting the reality YOU want. Wouldn't it suck if some things you absolutely loved were not in the game and I kept telling you to get used to it, and get over it, because that's just "reality"?

If EVERYTHING is on the table, including 3 rows, I am willing to work with anyone to bring this game to the very zenith of what it can be. If you want to be on some "get over it, that's not happening" BS vibe, then - in the words of my lady Eithne - "there can be no negotiation". Enjoy the cruise on your sinking ship. I'm not going to lift a finger.
 
There are some things I wish I could say as well. I wish santa would give me 1 unbanable, untracable, uninteruptable post on this forum. oo.ooh.ooooooh boy oh boy. :D
 
To me, I wouldn't read toom uch into that. 6 months for complete overhaul, somebody had a lot of overtime at CDPR.
Definitely not Burza or other marketing and PR people: we barely got any info on Homecoming until September. Anyway, if you can't even accept the evident (lack of communication from CDPR), then it would be really hard to agree on anything.
 
I think the message is getting missed here. HC exists and is here. That aspect is not going to change. What might change is HC. So if there are perceived problems offer up solutions.

Asking CDPR to discard all the work put into HC, whether it's viewed as good or bad, and roll back to... Midwinter... isn't a solution. Asking for two versions of Gwent isn't either. Arbitrarily trashing the game, tossing negative labels at it or pulling out the pitchforks because someone actually likes HC isn't helpful.

Constructive feedback may not go anywhere. Evidently it often doesn't (and, honestly... If I elaborate there it won't be constructive or forum appropriate :)) At least it's constructive. There is an awful lot of QQ and not enough... constructiveness... If that is even a word. Pretty sure it isn't but whatever.

Most importantly, it needs to be recognized there isn't a line drawn in the sand with opposing sides.
 
Accepting the reality YOU want. Wouldn't it suck if some things you absolutely loved were not in the game and I kept telling you to get used to it, and get over it, because that's just "reality"?
There's just one reality. The rest is projections. And I have nothing to do with HC production.
If EVERYTHING is on the table, including 3 rows, I am willing to work with anyone to bring this game to the very zenith of what it can be. If you want to be on some "get over it, that's not happening" BS vibe, then - in the words of my lady Eithne - "there can be no negotiation". Enjoy the cruise on your sinking ship. I'm not going to lift a finger.
Ok? Keep being angry and playing the game you don't enjoy? I mean, what's there to add really?
Post automatically merged:

Definitely not Burza or other marketing and PR people: we barely got any info on Homecoming until September. Anyway, if you can't even accept the evident (lack of communication from CDPR), then it would be really hard to agree on anything.
If we're talking about lack of communication, absolutely. There was very little of it and it did not add positivity, that's for sure. Another thing they should work on. Epsecially if it was promised. I must have misread your post.
Post automatically merged:

I think the message is getting missed here. HC exists and is here. That aspect is not going to change. What might change is HC. So if there are perceived problems offer up solutions.

Asking CDPR to discard all the work put into HC, whether it's viewed as good or bad, and roll back to... Midwinter... isn't a solution. Asking for two versions of Gwent isn't either. Arbitrarily trashing the game, tossing negative labels at it or pulling out the pitchforks because someone actually likes HC isn't helpful.

Constructive feedback may not go anywhere. Evidently it often doesn't (and, honestly... If I elaborate there it won't be constructive or forum appropriate :)) At least it's constructive. There is an awful lot of QQ and not enough... constructiveness... If that is even a word. Pretty sure it isn't but whatever.

Most importantly, it needs to be recognized there isn't a line drawn in the sand with opposing sides.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
No, thank you. CDPR dismissed every kind of feedback to create this abomination. More importantly, the things which were written in the HC letter and the name 'Homecoming' itself are just marketing bs. Sure, that's something one should expect, but you don't have to like this kind of dishonest behaviour. In this regard CDPR isn't better than any other big publisher. I've given constructive feedback why I hate HC, but I know there is no way of going back. So I'll continue to let off steam here from time to time until I'll be able to just let it go, which it isn't easy after this long time. May HC die a hideous death.

gg
 
No, thank you. CDPR dismissed every kind of feedback to create this abomination. More importantly, the things which were written in the HC letter and the name 'Homecoming' itself are just marketing bs. Sure, that's something one should expect, but you don't have to like this kind of dishonest behaviour. In this regard CDPR isn't better than any other big publisher. I've given constructive feedback why I hate HC, but I know there is no way of going back. So I'll continue to let off steam here from time to time until I'll be able to just let it go, which it isn't easy after this long time. May HC die a hideous death.

gg
why not just skip to letting it go and steam in a Jacuzzi instead.
 
If you're crashing into a tree with 200 km/h there might be nothing left worth fixing. You'd better just buy a new car provided that you're still alive.

If you think the game is still fixable, don't waste your time argueing with people, who think otherwise, but offer solutions yourself. Funny thing is that I at least took some effort to write a rather detailed explanation what's wrong about HC in my opinion (https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/and-gwent-is-uninstalled-sadly.10988969/page-32), while the feedback of a certain other person was limited to punching people in the face. Please, don't answer with another oneliner, but follow words with deeds and show people, who might be interested (I'm not, but others will be), solutions to gwent's current problems.
 
Last edited:
If you're crashing into a tree with 200 km/h there might be nothing left worth fixing. You'd better just buy a new car provided that you're still alive.

If you think the game is still fixable, don't waste your time argueing with people, who think otherwise, but offer solutions yourself. Funny thing is that I at least took some effort to write a rather detailed explanation what's wrong about HC in my opinion (https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/and-gwent-is-uninstalled-sadly.10988969/page-32), while the feedback of a certain other person was limited to punching people in the face. Please, don't answer with another oneliner, but follow words with deeds and show people, who might be interested (I'm not, but others will be), solutions to gwent's current problems.
Check "Gwent Tactics" I worked on. Your feedback is a one liner in comparison. Oops, sorry another one liner to trigger a certain other person.
 
Last edited:
I think the message is getting missed here. HC exists and is here. That aspect is not going to change. What might change is HC. So if there are perceived problems offer up solutions.

Asking CDPR to discard all the work put into HC, whether it's viewed as good or bad, and roll back to... Midwinter... isn't a solution. Asking for two versions of Gwent isn't either. Arbitrarily trashing the game, tossing negative labels at it or pulling out the pitchforks because someone actually likes HC isn't helpful.

Constructive feedback may not go anywhere. Evidently it often doesn't (and, honestly... If I elaborate there it won't be constructive or forum appropriate :)) At least it's constructive. There is an awful lot of QQ and not enough... constructiveness... If that is even a word. Pretty sure it isn't but whatever.

Most importantly, it needs to be recognized there isn't a line drawn in the sand with opposing sides.

OK, I'll bite.

Let them:

- bring back 3 rows

- bring back proper card synergies and combos


...and then we can have ourselves a discussion about how to make this game great.
 
There's no re-roll. If it's a no-go for you well... that's a shame but "it is what it is". Besides, somehow you're bringing points that suit more "Gwent is uninstalled" thread.
You are the one who say, it wont go back. So you are the one who formulates a no go, not me. And of course i am more "Gwent is uninstalled", because you said, lets discuss, but only if we dont mention:
3 copies
3 rows
more tutors
more/better aligned archetypes
graphics (inlcuding leaders)
mulligans
matter of rows (e.g. row locking)
"coin flip" (summarize all probs here together)
handlimits
whatever i forgot

So all i see, even if you are serious about it, is a phrase "Accept it and move on". AFTER many big discussions why it was a downgrade over many months. So no, under these conditions i am not willing to help any further. I already gave my input (not all in this part of the forum, many at my mother tongues forum, which is, btw, dieing because the communitymanagement is just a PR-gag or for english forum mostly.), others gave their input, what do you want more?
Post automatically merged:

Asking CDPR to discard all the work put into HC, whether it's viewed as good or bad, and roll back to... Midwinter... isn't a solution.
Wait, we cant ask for something CDRed already did out of free will in the past? They discard a hole game once, why not again?
 
Folks, this needs to be reigned in. The personal bickering that's starting may not end well -- but it will end. Soon. So, so soon. It may already be over! Maybe, I missed the ending. That would be such a good ending.
 
Let them:

- bring back 3 rows

- bring back proper card synergies and combos


...and then we can have ourselves a discussion about how to make this game great.
Does 3 rows matter at this point? I never liked the two rows idea. I was against it from the start. The moment the agility patch hit rows ceased to carry much importance. 3 rows with importance would have been ideal. 3 rows with importance is also objectively more complex to handle. So as bad as it may be 2 rows with more importance is a decent middle ground. Furthermore, 2 rows isn't anywhere close to the top problems with HC.

What do you mean with proper card synergies and combos? Both exist all over the place in HC. What doesn't is long, multi-card chains where you pull half your deck, pointslam a board and achieve the optimal auto-pilot play you're looking for. If anything HC improved the game here. Deck building is more open since it isn't about sticking to some pre-defined static archetype. Synergy and card combos are... smaller in size. You can still netdeck but since the deck concepts aren't spoonfed it's far more difficult to follow a simple guide to pilot them well.

Feel to disagree. I won't hold it against you.
 
You are the one who say, it wont go back.
CDPR has stated that several times. I am not CDPR so I'm not saying anything. Don't shoot the messenger.
Post automatically merged:

Folks, this needs to be reigned in. The personal bickering that's starting may not end well -- but it will end. Soon. So, so soon. It may already be over! Maybe, I missed the ending. That would be such a good ending.
My deepest apologies. That wasn't my intent at all.
 
Does 3 rows matter at this point? I never liked the two rows idea. I was against it from the start. The moment the agility patch hit rows ceased to carry much importance. 3 rows with importance would have been ideal. 3 rows with importance is also objectively more complex to handle. So as bad as it may be 2 rows with more importance is a decent middle ground. Furthermore, 2 rows isn't anywhere close to the top problems with HC.

What do you mean with proper card synergies and combos? Both exist all over the place in HC. What doesn't is long, multi-card chains where you pull half your deck, pointslam a board and achieve the optimal auto-pilot play you're looking for. If anything HC improved the game here. Deck building is more open since it isn't about sticking to some pre-defined static archetype. Synergy and card combos are... smaller in size. You can still netdeck but since the deck concepts aren't spoonfed it's far more difficult to follow a simple guide to pilot them well.

Feel to disagree. I won't hold it against you.
I don't hold it against you either, but I disagree with almost everything.

I've gone numb in the fingers from repeating this over and over again. The rows DID matter even after agility, because you were paying attention where you put your cards - at least it was so in every game I played. I can link you countless tournament and non-tournament battles, where players were consciously arranging their units on the three different rows, for various reasons. There were countless cards and mechanics which worked better on three rows and were subsequently scrapped, changed into something else, or nerfed into uselessness (like weather). The game was better BALANCED on three rows. It was more fun to evade your adversary's attempts at removal (pure removal was considered reactionary and second-tier compared to building points), you had more space to play...Gwent is made to be played on three rows. It's better in every way.

Just because units weren't row locked anymore, or because they didn't do ability A or ability B or C depending on which row you played them (IMPORTANT REMINDER: which most cards STILL don't do today with two rows), that doesn't mean that rows didn't matter. It was just a popular PR catchphrase promoted by CDPR to justify their switching to two rows, which had ZERO to do with gameplay, and EVERYTHING to do with card art and marketing. I wish CDPR would deign to sacrifice 1/3 of their card size on the "battlefield", make some of the extra stuff smaller (such as the player's hands - especially the opponent's - the graveyard and deck), and squeeze in that 3d row again.

For me personally, and I am not alone in this, 3 rows is a must. And if we're talking about ideas, and what CDPR *should* be doing to give rows more meaning, instead of chopping rows, I direct you to my following thread:
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...maximum-reach-3-for-non-siege-units.10991725/

It's very much feasible, the basic mechanics are already there (reach), many of the cards are already there (siege engines), they just need to be willing to put in the work.


As for the synergies, I'm sorry but the fun is just not the same when your deck is a mish-mash of mini-combos, and everything is only loosely related. There are big archetypes which still exist (NG reveal immediately comes to mind although it's oppressive for other reasons), but the new abilities coupled with the provision system make it very hard to build decks in which every cog supports the war machine. Also, while I don't like point-slamming any more than you do, you cannot tell me that pulling off a 6-card combo is not fun. It doesn't have to give crazy points. But just making it work is mad fun, as opposed to pulling out every card one by one. And the game DOES need at least some thinning. I'm not advocating for a return to Mill-era or Craitesword-era or Consume-era super predictable gameplay, but some degree of tutoring, thinning and card combos...cannot be the enemy here. Not sure what your stance is exactly, but surely we must agree that some more consistency and less draw-dependence is good here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.