[Gwent Beta Server] What CDPR should have done

[Pred-X]

I cannot understand CDPR at all. Right after the critics from open PTR they should have had second thoughts about it. What would have been so bad about the following compromise? That's what they should have done.

1. Gwent Open Beta becomes Gwent. No support through patches, balancing, new cards. Rank mode gets deactivated. Everything else stays the same, as it was. in-game-purchases are still possible.

2. Homecoming becomes Gwent 2. With everything that belongs to it. New cards, new mechanics, new graphics, mandatory for tournements.

I don't think it would have been that of a problem. People could've decided for themselves what they want to play.

 

[idomyownstunts]

Err, what.

 

[tussauc]

How about no. I want them to devote their resources to making HC as good as possible.

 

[Pred-X]

How about no. I want them to devote their resources to making HC as good as possible.

It would have cost them no ressources to keep the actual version alive. Just a few clicks to deactivate rank mode. That's it. As I wrote, no ongoing support for the old version. Just letting the people play.

 

[4RM3D]

Splitting the game into two also means splitting the community into two as well as CDPR's resources. That's not a good idea.

 

[idomyownstunts]

Yeah. Sounds a bit cracked tbh.

 

[Pred-X]

Splitting the game into two also means splitting the community into two as well as CDPR's resources. That's not a good idea.

Or it could went this way: People are playing the old version for 1 or 2 years more, getting tired and switch to Gwent 2. Some people might stop playing Gwent at all (as I will, because they dislike the new version). And later the community is all about Gwent 2. THEN they still could have shut down the servers for Gwent 1 and the outcry would have been much less.

 

[Draconifors]

No.
Splitting resources, splitting community... what could possibly be good about that? A few individual players' satisfaction is not worth sacrificing everything else.

 

[Pred-X]

I don't understand. What ressources would be split, the matchmaking servers maybe? But anything else?

 

[idomyownstunts]

Time for my unbiased and incredibly professional opinion. What they should have done is turned Gwent into a match three game, that would become Gwent (match) 3

 

[Draconifors]

What ressources would be split, the matchmaking servers maybe?

I would imagine keeping up two separate (sets of) servers takes more time, work and money than one might expect. Not to mention tech support when issues occur.

 

[nedders]

What should have happened is Gwent:HC should have been for the Thronebreaker game and for mobile devices only. Makes considerably more sense. In fact it should even be CALLED Thronebreaker and kept separate, because it just isn't anything like either Gwent in Witcher, or Gwent Beta.

Gwent Beta should have just been improved by card deal mechanic innovation, innovation on how to use special cards (for example, 4 Gold, 6 Silver, 10+ Bronze, 5+ Special) to avoid deal rage, better system for mulligan, keep coin toss but ensure that you only go first every other turn (or amend it to a "highest first card played goes second" trumping type mechanic), focusing/reducing/improving cards by nerfing/limiting certain mechanics (GS/VW), then amending/removing as much RNG as possible (create/random spawn).

I wonder if CDPR will either admit mistakes, or whether they would consider releasing the code to a development team??

 

[Sapooken]

No.
Splitting resources, splitting community... what could possibly be good about that? A few individual players' satisfaction is not worth sacrificing everything else.

In the present condition the community will be split regardless - into those who play HC and those who don't play the game at all. A few individual players' satisfaction is not worth sacrificing everything else, damn right. Which players do you prioritize - that will be defined by the market. One thing is certain, though; those who don't like what Gwent had become will not pay for TB.

 

[partci]

Splitting the game into two also means splitting the community into two as well as CDPR's resources. That's not a good idea.

You mean the community is not split now, right?

 

[boblegoute]

Is there a way to make a mode looking like the beta? I'm sure there would be more people on that than incoming.

So disappointed, i dont want open my 30 kergs currently.

 

[Pred-X]

Is there a way to make a mode looking like the beta? I'm sure there would be more people on that than incoming.

So disappointed, i dont want open my 30 kergs currently.

I'm sitting on 50 kegs and 5.000 ore. AFTER I already opened 50 kegs just for fun. Because I always liked keg opening.

 

[AvernusAlbakir]

What CDPR should have done was to not make a new game after 2 years of beta and release it without further open beta testing.

Personally my opinion about Homecoming was "I never asked for this - but I will give it a go" and I would like to retain access to the OB version, but I don't think CDPR could afford it both in terms of resources and - more importantly - public image. Allowing people to cling to the old thing would mean acknowledging that HC was not what many people waited for. and casting doubt on all the HC initiative and investment that was made into it. No public company will make such a move.

 

[DRK3]

What i think CDPR should have done is follow a more open development process of Homecoming, where it would show the progress and ideas to its playerbase regularly and take the feedback it gets into account, to figure out the direction they should go. Sometimes the players dont really know what they want, but it seems CDPR also doesnt know, im guessing the ideal way would be something inbetween.

Instead, they announced HC and shut themselves down, only letting few concepts - like the reduction of 3 to 2 rows - which even that was poorly received but they still kept it. Then they only showed us what HC would be last month, when it was already too late to make drastic changes and would imply months and months of hard work going to the trash and admitting they were wrong, so now we're stuck with this mess of Gwent.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

ok

 

[TheNotoriousThree]

What i think CDPR should have done is follow a more open development process of Homecoming, where it would show the progress and ideas to its playerbase regularly and take the feedback it gets into account, to figure out the direction they should go. Sometimes the players dont really know what they want, but it seems CDPR also doesnt know, im guessing the ideal way would be something inbetween.

Instead, they announced HC and shut themselves down, only letting few concepts - like the reduction of 3 to 2 rows - which even that was poorly received but they still kept it. Then they only showed us what HC would be last month, when it was already too late to make drastic changes and would imply months and months of hard work going to the trash and admitting they were wrong, so now we're stuck with this mess of Gwent.

That's precisely what I hoped for when they announced Homecoming but thinking about it it probably doesn't make sense. After all, how can you develop a game with the public playerbase? They can't just keep scratching concepts based on what some people - so the tiny bit of hardcore players left - think they dislike.

I think the only possible way was what they did - make a plan B and work towards it in calm, without pressure from outside and without having to waste time on anything else, like releasing and discussing footage.

That being said I love Homecoming and I hope Gwent will gain more popularity than it did during the Open Beta.