What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG

[Ulubey0]

I refuse to accept that and to this day i had not been presented by a single well funded argument of this theory. And in this topic you also fails to present at least one. You just repeat it as a mantra and a universal truth without anything to back it up.

I have nothing against 4RMD personally, but nothing I've seen on these forums makes me more frustrated than when he goes on "beta was doomed to fail" rants. It's like he's just repeating the same buzzwords, saying things like beta lacked "design space". He never explains it, like check out this quote from his top post:

The solution was to remove all mechanics that held the game back. Let's take a quick look at some of the most prominent discarded mechanics:
- Passive faction abilities
- Gold immunity
- Weather (in its original form)
- Card advantage spies
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions)
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc)

Just how were these mechanics holding the game back?! Maybe changes to a couple of these were good... but removing all the interesting mechanics from the game definitely did not increase the game's potential like he keeps claiming.

We don't know, we can only speculate. So, until you actually provide facts, stop presenting your opinion as such.

Many times I have posted twitch charts that show how much the game was thriving in Beta, compared to now. We used to have 35k - 50k people watching every Gwent tournament in Beta (that's like an entire football stadium full of people).
Now in Homecoming we are lucky to get even 15k watching during tournaments. Gwent is by no means a dead game but it's obvious that it's glory days are long gone. These statistics are real, and i wish 4RMD would stop saying there are no facts to support that Beta was the more popular game. It's not just my opinion, it is a fact!

 

[4RM3D]

"lets just copy hearthstone and hope for the best"

But why? If Gwent beta was so popular (as @Ulubey0 suggests), then why change the formula for success? The only reason I can think of is that it wasn't enough for CDPR, other than -you know- what I have been saying about the game not being sustainable.

We (you, me and @Ulubey0) all dislike the direction Gwent has taken. Yet, I do want to point out the current ratings:

4.6/5 (‎212.702 votes on Android)
4.7/5 (‎1.412 votes on iOS)
9/10 (‎6.750 votes on Steam)

This tells me two things. First of all, we seemingly aren't the target audience anymore, but the new generation seems to like it. And secondly, the popularity on Android makes the switch to mobile a good (business) decision; more on that later.

[...] going mobile, featuring their game at the competition virtual shop, its screaming desperation!

Going mobile is a smart move, which I supported. CCG are a prime example for mobile. However, I don't agree with the sacrifices made to accomplish it. Removing the third row wasn't necessary, even though CDPR claimed otherwise. Most CCG are made with mobile in mind and, as such, the UI and visuals have been build to match that. Gwent didn't have this luxury.

Going to Steam is a smart business move too. Not only is Steam the biggest distribution platform (on the PC), Thronebreaker is already on Steam and so is the Witcher Trilogy.

Going mobile/Steam, in itself, isn't screaming desperation. What bothers me the timing of it all. This is once again speculation. I can see your point and it may even be the reason. However, considering going mobile/Steam is a smart decision, regardless, it does make the situation more clouded to judge.

At least Valve's maintained some self-respect and didnt featured Artifact at GOG.

Poor example, Steam is the biggest distribution platform and Valve doesn't need to release their games elsewhere. Also, Artifact couldn't have worked on GOG, regardless, because it breaks GOG's policy.

The only opinion here is the one that original gwent had "limitating growing factor" or "game design flaws". Opinion that was feed to the community so CDPR could justify the butchering they did to the game, which had an enormous potential because they didnt know what to do with it once they lost their creative mind so "lets just copy hearthstone and hope for the best".

Those opinions are my own. It's not because CDPR told me so. They never properly explained what went wrong. The devs have shown bits and pieces here and there, but that's far from a complete picture. Anyhow, don't get me wrong. I am not making excuses for CDPR. I'm just trying to understand, which is not the same as accepting the result.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] he goes on "beta was doomed to fail" rants.

That's not entirely accurate. Gwent, in its original conception, was doomed to fail. The Witcher 3's Gwent wasn't suited to be a CCG. The only was to succeed was to adapt the game. Beta was the closest thing to this idea. I have been through all the iterations in (closed) beta, from the start. And, throughout all those iterations, there wasn't one of them where the game was "ready" (or balanced).

Beta had potential though mistakes were made (Midwinter). The turning point was Homecoming and I still don't know what made CDPR scrap beta altogether. Midwinter (and the change of creative director) might have been the catalyst. In any case, it showed that CDPR couldn't continue with the beta Gwent. My theory is that the original Gwent had too many limitations to become a competitive CCG.

Lastly, I am going to say something painful. The current Gwent has removed many of those limitations and, yet, CDPR still cannot balance the game. To put it bluntly, if it's still going to be a mess, at least keep it authentic and in spirit of the original Gwent.

[...] beta lacked "design space". He never explains it, like check out this quote from his top post: [...]
Just how were these mechanics holding the game back?! Maybe changes to a couple of these were good... but removing all the interesting mechanics from the game definitely did not increase the game's potential like he keeps claiming.

I didn't go in-depth because the thing I wanted to focus on wasn't about that. Though, I did wanted to explain, it would have made the post way too large and it was already (too) big. This reply is already getting very long, so I still don't want to go in-depth, here. If you disagree with the points below, I can explain some more next time.

In short:
- Passive faction abilities >> broken
- Gold immunity >> limited design space, but workarounds might have been possible
- Weather (in its original form) >> broken
- Card advantage spies >> broken
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions) >> limited design space
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc) >> too much too talk about here

Many times I have posted twitch charts that show how much the game was thriving in Beta, compared to now.

First of all, I wasn't addressing you. Secondly, those statistics says nothing about how the game would perform now, if Homecoming didn't happen. Maybe it would be a more popular game, maybe not. And that still says nothing about the overall quality of the game. To clarify, I am not refuting those statistics, but I do take them with a grain of salt with regards to extrapolating what the future would have held.

Lastly, you have thrown around some statistics. Let me do the same. As mentioned in my previous post, the ratings for Gwent:
4.6/5 (‎212.702 votes on Android)
4.7/5 (‎1.412 votes on iOS)
9/10 (‎6.750 votes on Steam)

Seems like Gwent is doing pretty alright (and it's popular on Android). So, maybe it was a good decision after all. It's just that I personally still don't like it.

 

[Laveley]

- Passive faction abilities >> broken
- Gold immunity >> limited design space, but workarounds might have been possible
- Weather (in its original form) >> broken
- Card advantage spies >> broken
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions) >> limited design space
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc) >> too much too talk about here

None of those mechanics were really problematic to the point of such a radical solution as plain off removal. Quite the opposite, all of them were flavour and fleshed out, they were what made beta gwent so good and unique. Their iterations and combinations with each other.

They were the soul of gwent and what makes the TW3 minigame so fun and attractive.

They were gwent!

If you dont like those mechanics and think that they wont fit together, than you never liked gwent in the first place and never believed it would be a good game in the first place.

But again, fact proves it wrong because it was good when those mechanics were around.

Weather its the best example; at its last iteration only low rank scrubs complained about it. It sucked some serious balls. nobody at higher ranks used it with the exception of some few cards like ragnarok (i think it was named this the gold card which put weather at all the rows). It was effectively soft-removed from the game already.

Even in the TW3 original gwent weather sux. I stomp the AI in the highest difficulty without worrying a bit with weather. Ihmo weather never was a problem in gwent in all of its iterations besides being a noob-stomper mechanic.

It was removed just to try to sympathize to a larger player pool. Big mistake. Corporate mistake. Direction mistake.

Same applies to pretty much all the other mechanics. I know i wont convince you in this one. I wont even try. Just know that those people that supported the "mechanics that add to the game flavour, uniqueness and creativity are actually bad and we need to remove it to make a witcher theme solitaire game so it will attract to the masses" are long gone and came back of their words already.

 

[4RM3D]

It was removed just to try to sympathize to a larger player pool. Big mistake. Corporate mistake. Direction mistake.

And yet you still dance around the conclusion. I've linked the ratings (and the number of votes on Android), which tells me the game is doing fine. So, yes, maybe some mechanics were removed to "sympathize to a larger player pool", but, no, apparently that wasn't a mistake.

 

[Anciluart]

Lastly, you have thrown around some statistics. Let me do the same. As mentioned in my previous post, the ratings for Gwent:
4.6/5 (‎212.702 votes on Android)
4.7/5 (‎1.412 votes on iOS)
9/10 (‎6.750 votes on Steam)

Of all the statistics you chose the only one that does not require consistency, people who quit the game rarely bother to change the rating it gave at the beginning.

Last month the game ended in Steam with -5% growth, which has "improved".

Additionally, using Android doesn't seem unfair to you?
The beta did not have that opportunity, neither in IOS or Steam. Even so, the recurring interest statistics are superior on the same platform (and almost with a ratio of 1-5).
What I'm trying to say, it doesn't make sense to say "the game is going well, look at android" because there is no way to compare it with the previous version with the same market reach.

The only thing I see in your statics is that a more extensive market attracts more players, how nice, as if that was a novelty.
About the rate, games rarely go below 4 if they're at least mediocre. Gwent has little time in android, in time it will be e 4 like the others.

If I agree with you on something, that we are no longer the target audience, that does not mean that the new audience is necessarily superior to what the beta would have won with the same options.

In my case I can continue to play something for art , even if it is lower than it was(But I do not spend money practically, I will only buy them the journey, buying MP is even ridiculous since the quality of the animations is inferior.)
Also if it is true that they do not hesitate to change, well, they could throw this version in the trash and bring the other, but the philosophy of "Why design if stealing is easier" is starting to bother me a lot.

The saddest thing is that they will never beat HS in being HS, they will never be better MtG than MtG, they even have fewer players in Steam than Shadowverse (from where the echo mechanics were stolen).

But why? If Gwent beta was so popular (as @Ulubey0 suggests), then why change the formula for success?

They changed the formula, that of "success" was only said by the one who convinced the company to do it and there is no evidence of it. As I mentioned before, the profits from the mobile market are not a merit of HC, they are simply the profits from opening up to a larger market. The Journey and cosmetics could apply to both beta and HC.

Regarding the launch of HC, I think what they wanted to do was keep the game and at the same time reduce the team in a way that would save time until the publication of CP 2077 (where they moved part of the gwent team), if we look at the updates of HC, the first year was just adding things that were already in beta.
It would have been very difficult to get the beta as it was to the mobile markets at the same time to expand it with new mechanics with the small team.

That is another thing that I hope, that CP 2077 will finally be published and people who really strive to design will return.

 

[4RM3D]

What I'm trying to say, it doesn't make sense to say "the game is going well, look at android" because there is no way to compare it with the previous version with the same market reach.

True, it says nothing about whether or not the game could have been better (or worse, for that matter) because we don't have a comparison. But it does say that, for a moment in time, the game was doing well enough. The rest is speculation.

The saddest thing is that they will never beat HS in being HS, they will never be better MtG than MtG, they even have fewer players in Steam than Shadowverse (from where the echo mechanics were stolen).

I don't think it was CDPR's intend to topple HS or MtG. That would have been unrealistic. However, they did try to find ways to attract more players.

 

[Laveley]

They changed the formula, that of "success" was only said by the one who convinced the company to do it and there is no evidence of it.

Exactly, someone had the wrong vision. Everything points out to it. If you analyse the whole cycle as an observer;

Project starts with a leader dev with a vision for the game -> looks promising at closed beta-> looks even more promising with big number for a open beta niche game -> lead dev goes away, someone new takes the lead - > radical change of approach, clearly starting to copycat other market titles which are already pacified in the market instead of keep working with what they had -> someone in there had a great desire to prove that he had a better vision of the project than the original minds had.

If you work in a big Company you see crap like this daily-basis.

People treat Company projects that are gave to them as it was THEIR project, their little child. And when it passes on, the new person wants to change it completely, put it their mark and erase everything the original developer had thrived for.

Sometimes it works out, most of times the shitt goes down.

Heck, you see this crap even in TV shows. You know a TV show will suck when the original developers are changed. All the original vision goes down the sink and the new people at charge want to change it to their tastes just to prove their are more capable/competent in their visions.