If it's any consolation being the long term player with all of the cards isn't as much fun as one would think. Game still gets stale really fast, imo due to the bad balancing that usually results in a just a few decks and leaders being playable.
If it's any consolation being the long term player with all of the cards isn't as much fun as one would think. Game still gets stale really fast, imo due to the bad balancing that usually results in a just a few decks and leaders being playable.
You've mistaken playable with popular. Every meta has a few top tier decks, but I see more and more variation in decks being played. When I compare the different kind of decks across Gwent's History, based on my personal experience (rank 0) and watching streamers, I can say that there is a lot of variation nowadays. The staleness is mostly found in the final climb to rank 0.
No, they didn't and they've naturally never been on the same power level. In the end it's about how much value do cards give you if you play them together. Look at this, the value of card A is in the vacuum much higher than that of B, but doesn't offer much synergy. Now you combine B with C and D and get the value x. On the other hand you combine A with C and D and only get the value x-1. In this specific scenario B is suddenly the better card. Then you combine A with E and F and get also the value x, while B gets with that combination only x-2. In the end not all cards need to have the same powerlevel to be balanced. It's about how good they are if Iyoucombine them. It's about cards fullfilling a certain role. Queensgard were obviously the dominating card in the Queensgard deck, but there were still other cards , which were helpful to pull of your gameplan even if you can't even remember their name (you know that smith, which strengthed other units by 2
).I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I mean, yeah, they can print the same cards with different stats and different provision cards. Good for CDPR, no real upside for the player. Some small exaggeration: You have three simple cards with no ability and 4,5,6 strength and 4,5,6 provisions. Now in one deck I put two 5ers and in the other one 4 and one 6. Offers the 2nd deck more variety? No, just more variance. That may be a dumb example, but how does a bigger gap in power add more variety? Different strategies, play patterns and mechanics add more variety. If someone asks me if I prefer having a strong and synergistic bronze, but a weak gold or instead a great gold, but a crap bronze card in my deck I'd answer them to check their game design philosophy. Something went wrong.
If we are already talking about provisions, I think the smaller the difference between cards (in terms of provisions) the better. Anything else just increases variance.
I agree. However, with my definition of power level, I've also included the (combo) potential of the card. Maybe I should have called it (power) rating? Anyhow, the thing is, beta had the same issue with balancing cards based on combos and certain cards had a lot more potential (like Craiteswords).
That's a good point. The provision system does increases the variance. Still, it also allows for more creativity. Portal is one of the more interesting tutor cards (and a bit too powerful with the NR patch, maybe), which can only exist because of the provision system.
Another good thing about the provision system is that tutor cards can finally be tweaked. In beta, tutors were problematic because you did not have to pay a premium price. Now, with the provision system, tutor cards can be individually tweaked based on the cards they can pull. Incidentally, tutorable cards were also an issue because their "power level" could not be the same as other (bronze) cards, which resulted in the tutorable cards almost never being played from hand. This also limited the design space of further tutors and tutorable cards.
Finally, let's take another example, Heymaey Protector. I personally like the design of the card. If the provision system didn't exist, then the only tweaking tool would be to increase (or decrease) its strength. However, this also affects how strong the potential removal capabilities of other others cards should be, which, in turn, affects the strength of other cards. This results in a baseline strength and damage level, which limits the design space of new cards because all those cards have to be tuned for the baseline.
I'm not sure about there being more variation but I saw a change in the meta after the patches, which is very important for my enjoyment of the game. NR came out strong and I saw new cards and strategies being played.
Having a powerful leader for a month is not a big deal in my opinion, as long as there's a regular (monthly) change in decks and strategies being played.
I played from rank 6 to 1 last season.
Well, we won't come to an agreement on, which advantages outweigh each other anyway. So I can use it as an example for this question:
Pre-midwinter brokvar hunter was "Whenever a Unit adjacent to this Unit is Damaged, Strengthen self by 1 " (regressing tag). It was a great designed card, really a enormous shame they gave it a generic damage ability after midwinter. Heymaey Protector just boosts himself instead of strengthen (in case someone hasn't played during beta: strengthen increases the base power of a unit), which unfortunately has been removed, but a number of different mechanics is important to make the game interesting, add variety and depth. For example you could damage brokvar hunter by one after he was bumped up and use the good old warcrier (he boosted two damaged units by half their power) on him.
So, pre-Midwinter there was more depth because the game has more (unique) mechanics? I disagree. Beta didn't have that much more and post-HC we also got a lot of new stuff. You can divide the scrapped mechanics into three categories: good riddance, don't care and will be missed. For me, most of the scrapped mechanics fall within the first two categories. The strengthen/weaken mechanic might be the only exception where I do miss it.
Speaking of, the whole carry-over potential has been limited because it got out of hand during beta (resilience dwarfs being the best example). I do like some small carry-over for each faction having its own unique mechanism. For example, Mo have Ghouls, ST has handbuff and SK could get strengthening.
Among other reasons already mentioned in this thread.
Yeah, we got a billion keywords, which are all based on boost and damage effects. Not really mindblowing. We also got orders, charges and artifacts, which are mechanics, which do more harm than good imo or lets say this kind of stuff creates different problems, which may or may not outhweigh the benefits (based on personal preference).
That applies to closed beta and early open beta. At some point the further reduction of carryover was unecessary and the actual problem was kind of ignored. It wasn't the actual amount of carryover, but the inequality between direct carryover such as resilience, wardancer, Morkvarg etc and indirect carryover such as graveyard strengthening, hand boost etc and the resulting problem when it comes to round 2 drypassing. They should have given all forms of direct carryover the 'Ronvid treatment' or sth similar. I'm sure you know what I mean.
There is one final thing I want to point out. In beta, you could only take one action each turn and that was playing a card. All the ongoing effects were automatic. Now, you can take multiple actions per turn, which allows for more decision making, resulting in more strategy (potential).
Beta did have its charms, but I think that in the long run, the one action limit would have taken its toll. It's part of the inherent design problems of a game originally not meant to be a competitive online CCG. Compare that with the dynamics of other CCG where you can play multiple cards every turn and you have a mana system to dictate the flow of the game. Gwent beta was probably more unique, but lacking the aforementioned two features, which where implemented in the final release, as Orders and Provisioning.
Probably so. It's difficult to find a sweet spot, especially with the things you've mentioned about the inequality between direct and indirect carry-over.
Do you think it would be a thing nowadays, if untouched/slightly adjusted? Was it really necessary to cut such a simple but impactfull mechanic?
Post automatically merged:
Provision are not the same as Mana, they work totally different. And even in Beta you could play more than one card, if you have the effects for it. (Tutor is best example).
Adjusted, how? Carry-over with the buffs intact led to quite an unhealthy meta. Like I've mentioned in a previous post, I rather see every faction getting its own unique carry-over mechanic and be done with the generic implementation, which included the buffed carry-over, in beta.
Provisions and mana are indeed different things, but they have one similarity, that it allows for cards to have "payment" value. This brings Gwent one step closer to traditional CCG.
Tutoring cards, I don't really count. You still can only play one card. The only difference is that it pulls one or more from your deck.
I have true impression that CDPR values more the respect and good feelings of the clients that she has and by that conqueror more clients, in a natural way... yes can be more slow but you build a community so much healthier that I'm proud to say I'm in.
Quality over quantity , and they have my thanks, respect and investment for that, and I try to bring as much as I can to this site of a Actually Good Game Company.
My cousin never had played a CD game in life, and he already pre-purchase Cyber after some day os Witcher 3 that I give as gift for him ( in one of that promotions).
Quality over quantity , and they have my thanks, respect and investment for that, and I try to bring as much as I can to this site of a Actually Good Game Company.
My cousin never had played a CD game in life, and he already pre-purchase Cyber after some day os Witcher 3 that I give as gift for him ( in one of that promotions).
Are you kidding me? The hole developement was the exact opposite
Thats not the point. This isnt about Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk 2077, thi is about Gwent a different game. Only because its CDRED, it doesnt mean it must be a good game.
What is happening with GWENT is not that it's unpopular, but more like in readaptation phase. What I would consider as a game that became unpopular due to new updates is what happened with Paragon.
People really liked Paragon and found it as a unique moba experience. All that changed with the New Dawn update. Core mechanics were revamped that not only made the game foreign to its players, but also changed the feel of the game. This is an important advantage in GWENT's side which is that it still performs and feels as a card game, while Paragon was changed from a third person moba to third person shooter or Hack and Slash.
Rainbow Six Siege, despite being praised by critics, took at least a year, since its official release, to make it more popular among gamers in order to increase its player base. And through huge efforts Ubisoft managed to pull it through. Similarly, GWENT should keep it up the way Siege did, and at some point GWENT will reach a stage where the majority will see it as popular enough.
People really liked Paragon and found it as a unique moba experience. All that changed with the New Dawn update. Core mechanics were revamped that not only made the game foreign to its players, but also changed the feel of the game. This is an important advantage in GWENT's side which is that it still performs and feels as a card game, while Paragon was changed from a third person moba to third person shooter or Hack and Slash.
Rainbow Six Siege, despite being praised by critics, took at least a year, since its official release, to make it more popular among gamers in order to increase its player base. And through huge efforts Ubisoft managed to pull it through. Similarly, GWENT should keep it up the way Siege did, and at some point GWENT will reach a stage where the majority will see it as popular enough.
私はGWENTを先月始めたばかりです。ここ日本でも、GWENTは人気がないように感じます。
私は負けてばかりですが、私はGWENTをとても楽しんでいます。とても楽しいゲームなのに、なぜ人気がないのでしょうか？
CDPRは、もっと新規プレイヤーの獲得に努力すべきだと思います。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------google translation
I just started GWENT last month. I feel that GWENT is not popular here in Japan either.
I'm just losing, but I enjoy GWENT very much. Why isn't it popular even though it's a very fun game?
I think CDPR should try to get more new players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
私は負けてばかりですが、私はGWENTをとても楽しんでいます。とても楽しいゲームなのに、なぜ人気がないのでしょうか？
CDPRは、もっと新規プレイヤーの獲得に努力すべきだと思います。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------google translation
I just started GWENT last month. I feel that GWENT is not popular here in Japan either.
I'm just losing, but I enjoy GWENT very much. Why isn't it popular even though it's a very fun game?
I think CDPR should try to get more new players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your information, there is a Japanese forum too: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/gwent.8430050/
HI, 4RM3D!
I know the Japanese forum.
However, there is not much active discussion. This is one of the reasons I feel GWENT is not very popular.
I wanted to appeal that there are GWENT fans in Japan too, so I posted it in Japanese.
GWENT is very fun! !
I know the Japanese forum.
However, there is not much active discussion. This is one of the reasons I feel GWENT is not very popular.
I wanted to appeal that there are GWENT fans in Japan too, so I posted it in Japanese.
GWENT is very fun! !
Quite simply, Gwent does not deserve to popular.
It's an unbalanced mess where the devs only release a patch once a month despite how broken it is, and month after month it seems to only get worse, not better.
The current meta is so bad its pratically impossible to beat the Tier 0 decks without NG's counter, no matter how skilled you are.
I just had a complete beginner trying to 2-0 me when he had Dijkstra and lost R1 one card down. He almost came close because i had Vandergrift and Summoning Circle for R3, but managed to win with 1 card and Leader ability and crushed him R3.
Basically Gwent has been downhill since Crimson Curse, in balance terms. Look at Monsters and Skellige - they were dominant for 5 months and 2/3 months respectively and now nobody plays them, because the changes never get it right.
There are so many great games out there that deserve to be played more than this bullshit.
It's an unbalanced mess where the devs only release a patch once a month despite how broken it is, and month after month it seems to only get worse, not better.
The current meta is so bad its pratically impossible to beat the Tier 0 decks without NG's counter, no matter how skilled you are.
I just had a complete beginner trying to 2-0 me when he had Dijkstra and lost R1 one card down. He almost came close because i had Vandergrift and Summoning Circle for R3, but managed to win with 1 card and Leader ability and crushed him R3.
Basically Gwent has been downhill since Crimson Curse, in balance terms. Look at Monsters and Skellige - they were dominant for 5 months and 2/3 months respectively and now nobody plays them, because the changes never get it right.
There are so many great games out there that deserve to be played more than this bullshit.
Hi, DRK3.
I am a casual player who has no great experience like you. But I am aiming for a higher rank.
Monsters and Skellige played dominant for 5 months and 2/3 months, but aren't playing now?
Isn't it a good change? Will you get bored if the situation where a particular power is dominantly played continues? I feel positive about change.
Well, I think there are actually a lot of great games that I just didn't realize. If I have more time, I can play a lot of games.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
This sentence is written by Google translation. If there are expressions that are not translated correctly and are misleading, please forgive me.
I am a casual player who has no great experience like you. But I am aiming for a higher rank.
Monsters and Skellige played dominant for 5 months and 2/3 months, but aren't playing now?
Isn't it a good change? Will you get bored if the situation where a particular power is dominantly played continues? I feel positive about change.
Well, I think there are actually a lot of great games that I just didn't realize. If I have more time, I can play a lot of games.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
This sentence is written by Google translation. If there are expressions that are not translated correctly and are misleading, please forgive me.