Hallo there, boys and girls. Let me start by admitting that the title is just a bit misleading, as I haven`t solved quite everything. There`s still global warming. Racism. Human nature.
But! I`ve solved Gwent. Read on and find out how.
A warning: There`s a wall of text below that would make GRRM proud. These are some thoughts about the state of Gwent and how I would like to see it improved - with concrete solutions. If you are short on time, you can scroll way - waaaaaaaaay - down and find a summary.
Ok, some background. I`ve played Gwent pretty much since the beginning of the open beta, clocked in over 1500 hours, been/am in the pro league; the usual. I really like CDPR as a company (they make games that fit my needs), I like the Witcher lore, I love - LOVE - the Gwent art, and I enjoy brainy games.
As you can see by my time investment, I was very much into Gwent; until Homecoming came along that is. When CDPR revealed some of the changes they were going to implement, I was skeptical, but I really tried to keep an open mind and adapt to the new reality. So when HC was published, I played the game for a few weeks, and then I stopped. Haven`t played it since.
HC made me think hard about what I don`t like about shiny new Gwent and why I don`t like it. And after a few days it was 14 pages of 11-font word documented text of Gwent fan fiction; or as it is to me "Game Solved - My Ideal Version of Gwent".
Let`s get to it then. This is where I`ll list all the things that I would like to see changed, why I believe they should change and most important of all, how to change them.
There are four basic keywords I`d like to see in Gwent.
ASYMMETRIC GAMEPLAY - IDENTITY - CONSISTENCY - CHOICE
Asymmetric gameplay:
I don`t know about you, but for me the tension, the fun and the strategy/tactic in these types of games comes from the wildly contrasting play styles - factions and archetypes that have different win conditions, require different setups, spike in power at different times, have their own weaknesses and strengths; all the stuff that requires the player to assess and understand the board state, to adapt to it, to use the knowledge and the tools at his disposal to his own advantage. But HC has purged most of the traits from the factions. No more spies, no spellatel, no mulligan-scoia, no movement, consume, weather, etc... Which brings us to
Identity
This is something that has bothered me since the beginning of the open beta and it has only worsen over every iteration of Gwent. With "identity" I don`t mean only faction identity (I`ll come to that later), but the identity and consequently also the purpose of any given card type. What`s the identity, the flavor of an organic card as opposed to an alchemy card? What kind of playstyle does it lean towards? What archetype does it empower?
In other games the difference between a green spell and a red spell are easy to spot and to understand. Green is for growth and you put a red spell in your deck because it goes boom. That`s intuitive. In Gwent tags and categories are mostly used as restrictions, from the days when there were tutors, so that those couldn`t access every single card of a specific type.
Moreover even the units don`t have an identity. For me there should be a numerical difference between a unit that is designated for the melee row and one supposed to be played on the ranged row. I can`t see that in HC Gwent.
As mentioned before, there is also the disappearance of all those juicy faction-specific abilities. While there were some positive additions (orders, thrive) now it`s mostly deal damage and boost, boost and deal damage, boost when boosted, etc. If you take away the names and the numbers from the ability descriptions, can you tell which faction a card belongs to?
Consistency
For this part I´d like to argue what kind of game this is. You say it`s a card game like Hearthstone. Wrong. Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean:
I was playing a game with Usurper and no silver witchers - so no thinning. In those games you end up with 9 or 10 cards in your deck when the game is over. My opponent played Xavier Moran in round three and buffed him to over 40. I had GIgni and Gerald Professional in my deck and never drew them. Lost.
You see, in other card games you always have access to all of your cards - there`s only the question of probability. If you play long enough, eventually you will draw all of your cards. Gwent`s different. There is a limited number of turns (usually 16) and the 10 cards you don`t draw, you will never have access to. And it stinks - STINKS - to be at the mercy of the half of the deck you don`t draw. Your play doesn`t matter, your preparation doesn`t matter, your tech choices don`t matter.
So if you want to compare Gwent to a Blizzard game, it`s not Hearthstone. It´s Starcraft. Both players have armies (decks) with resources (units, etc.) that need to be managed properly for maximum value. That means thinning, tutoring and mulliganing - manipulation of the deck - to get access to all of those answers you`ve prepared.
Deck management in OB Gwent was its own mini game that added tactical depth on so many levels. I would really like that back. And so would you. Just look at the prevalence of the silver witchers. The players have spoken with their deck building.
Choice
Answer me this: What is the benefit of playing Caretaker on the melee row? What is the CHOICE here?
SOLUTIONS BABY!
Now to the solutions. The very first adjustment I`d like to see is the game reverting back to the values of OB Gwent, where bronze, silver and gold cards had target values of 11, 15 and 19 respectively.
This is important for so many reasons. First of all, the board states right now look frankly very dull with all these 4-power cards around. All the units look very same-y. With such low numbers there is not enough room for variation of the card stats, which diminishes their identity (I`ll come back to that later). Besides, wasn`t the lesson from the open beta to give the cards bigger values, so that there would be more leeway to balance them? Moreover, for a year or so we`ve been conditioned to work with the OB values - so from a pedagogic perspective the decision to go with the current numbers seems to me quite boneheaded. Lastly, as we`ve seen over the last months, when the values on the cards are so close together, it oftentimes takes just one ping to scorch the whole board. Low values make control way too easy to pull off and way too strong.
So going forward I will be working with the OB values when talking about the solutions.
Ok, the center piece of my proposition, the thing that solves most of it. Bring back the third row!
No, wait!
The game doesn`t need a complete overhaul for this to work. There are in fact already three rows in the game:
Melee row...one
Ranged row...two
Hand... three rows.
That`s my first proposition: make the hand the third row.
This way the game keeps the nice look with the big cards, but gets additional strategic depth and enables the return of all those faction abilities that disappeared because (I suspect) they couldn`t work on two rows.
How does this third row work?
For starters, instead of calling it the siege row, it would be the base or camp row. Narratively it makes sense that your army has a base from which it initiates its warring campaign. At the start of the game, all your units and resources are inactive in this base (the base row), then are activated (or deployed - call it as you want) as they are placed on the battlefield. They can be deployed to any of the three rows, provided there is enough space, meaning they can also be played to the base row - with a penalty (more on that later).
But then - you might ask - does that mean that the players can interact with the opponents hand? Yes, absolutely!
The cards in hand can be passively targeted - and attacked - by each player. You can damage the cards - even the inactive ones - but never below the value of one. You cannot destroy them. And of course, since the cards are face down when inactive, you would damage random cards. You can also play any type of weather on the base-row and over time harm all the units on it - active and inactive alike.
Understandably this seems problematic . It is not. Here`s a handy (had to do it) solution: FORTIFICATION.
Fortification functions much like armor. It`s the protection value for the whole row - meaning it protects any unit on that row, so long as it`s not destroyed - and is indicated on the left side of any row. It has no influence on the overall power values of your army on the right side. Each player starts the game with the base row (and only the base row) fortified for value of 30 (can be discussed, but let`s work with that number for now). This value is persistent for all three rounds , but can be reduced (siege machines, dragons, weather) or raised. In round one you could for example play Ragnarok, and over 8 turns the fortification value would be lessened by 16 and stay 14 for rounds two and three, unless further changed . If the fortification is completely destroyed, active cards can be directly, inactive cards indirectly attacked.
Furthermore, fortification is not only a tag, it`s also an ability.
Specific units have the ability to fortify a row - any row. Shield Maidens and Mahakam Defenders are the first that come to my mind. Just imagine the Spartans from "300" who cover with their shields, so that the guys behind can stab and poke. That`s what this is. As long as the fortification is intact, it will protect any unit on the row. This is the sort of thing the game needed with regard to engines. Up until now players never had the possibility (yes, Quen) to protect units before they were played. Instead you had a binary back and forth - you play a card, the opponent destroys it or doesn`t. With an ability like fortify you can prepare the field for engines and other cards of value, which would make them so much so much more viable. Equally it would make locks necessary again. Lastly it also creates another option to deal with weather and other raw-wide effects, which in turn allows weather to be designed more aggressively.
Those are just a few of the advantages you get from the fortification ability. There are so many more and I will come back to them later when I get to some practical examples for cards, etc. For now I`d like to jump to the next important point:
STRUCTURE FOR EVERYTHING.
Remember how I wrote about the lack of identity of card types and about the adjustment of the current card values back to those of the OB? Let`s address that.
While this might not be a problem per se, it would make Gwent so much clearer and more intuitive, if any given card type had a precisely defined character that makes it easily readable and understandable; makes it instantly evident what the designated row, role and purpose of that very card is. Of the two general card types (I`ll leave out special cards for now) here is how I imagine the unit subcategories should look like (keep in mind that is just a very abridged version, there are many more intricacies to all of this; also the numbers as presented below are orientational... so just go with the flow for now, ok?):
Melee units:
High health (7 - 12), low damage (1 - 3), reach of 1 (with an asterisk). Small penalty for ranged row deployment, but can gain defensive ability (like armor or fortify; depending on the rarity of the card). Bigger - faction-specific - health penalty for deployment of the ranged row. Units mostly have armor (about 2). Orders and duel abilities prevalent.
Ranged units:
Mid health (4 - 8), mid damage (1 - 6), reach of 2 - 3. No penalty for melee deployment, small faction - specific penalty for base deployment. No armor. Deploy ability prevalent.
Siege units:
Low health (2 - 4), high damage (1-8), imprecise or volatile, reach 2 - 5. Can have armor. No penalties for melee and ranged deployment.
Support:
Mid health (4 - 7), no damage. No armor. No penalties on deployment. Versatile.
Alchemists:
Low health (1 - 6), versatile. Poor man`s mages, meaning that they have a wide range of utilities, from damage to support, but not as powerful as mages. Can be unique (gold, silver) but are mostly bronze units.
Officers:
Archetype "joints", the units that make an archetype work smoothly. Low to high health. Can have armor. Versatile on deployment. No row penalties. Tutors.
Mages:
Low health (1 - 4), very versatile with abilities for damage, control, support. No armor. No deploy penalties. Always unique (cannot be bronze).
Witchers:
Witchers obviously... Additionally to the stuff they have going for them now, witchers must always be unique (cannot be bronze; yes, you Viper Witchers). Always immune (they are, as per the lore, immune) - just for the extra flavor.
Legendary Units:
Faction specific legendaries need to aggressively incentivize archetypes, be the centerpieces or big payoffs thereof. Need to be complex and versatile - meaning having always multiple deploy choices. Neutral legendaries meanwhile should fit into multiple archetypes.
Please remember that this is just a brief overview of the characteristics I´d like to see on this unit types. There is way more complexity to every single of these categories, and there are more categories. And not to mention special cards. What I want to illustrate here is how the game needs a system and a structure to give each card type instantly recognizable traits, roles and purposes - identity. This paired with the third row and the OB Gwent card values creates much more variety on board; bigger range of stats, bigger diversity in damage output, reach, etc.
To the factions. In my ideal world their rough characteristics would look like this:
Nilfgard
Nilfgardian troops - as per the lore - are well trained, well equipped and disciplined. They also rely on intel and advanced scientific and technical knowledge. Translated to the game mechanics this means:
- Units with biggest overall stats
- Signature units: spies, alchemists, siege machines
- Signature abilities: orders, reveal
- Unit focus on melee row
- Great at thinning/managing troops
- Weak to control and weather
Skellige
Skellige units are reckless fighters and pirates. No well equipped (because they don`t need to) but drunk enough to make up for it.
- Mid stats, highest damage output of all the factions
- Signature units: resurrecting units, pirates, warriors
- Signature abilities: discard, resurrect, duel (makes most sense in SK), plunder
- Unit focus on melee row
Scoaitel
Scoaitel units are sparse and badly equipped. To make up for it, they are very mobile and slippery and like to attack from a hidden or fortified position. Have lots of magic users.
- Lowest overall stats of all the factions, but with wide variety of damage output
- Signature units: Spell-tutors (elves), item-tutors (dwarves), trap-tutors (dryads)
- Signature abilities: move, hide, fortify, ambush
- Unit focus on ranged row
Monsters
Monsters are the least homogenous faction, having a polarizing diversity for stats (bigger than Nilfgards, smaller than Scoiatels) and abilities among its units. I would divide them in four groups, each one with a specific focus: Wild Hunt, vampires, necrophages, beasts and insectoids.
- Wild Hunt is the destructive part of the faction, with stats that rival those of Nilfgardian units and big damage output
- Vampires grow while in the graveyard
- Necrophages abuse the opponents graveyard
- Beast and insectoids rely on weather, effects and swarm tactics
- Signature abilities: consume, deathwish, infect
- Units not focused on any particular row
Northern Realms
NR is the faction that is usually the target of aggression. They start out weak but get stronger with growing success and numbers.
- Mid stats, mid damage, swarm tactics
- Signature units: bronze tutors, siege machines, crew
- Signature abilities: tutor, boost, crew, promote (an additional ability - since NR for me always was the dullest faction -to make the more unique; for bronze units - destroy an enemy gold-unit to get promoted; promoted unit gains additional stats, armor, charges, color)
- Units not focused on any particular row
Lastly, some examples how I wished the cards were designed (on the base of the pre-HC values and abilities) :
Drummond Shieldmaid, 4 power
Melee: Deploy - deal 2 damage to an enemy unit; if it was already damaged, summon another Drummond Shieldmaid from your deck
Ranged: Deploy - fortify 2
Base: Deploy - penalty 1
Here you have two choices, thinning and damage, or low value but defensive setup.
An Craite Raider, 4 power
Whenever you discard this unit, resurrect it
Melee: Deploy - Deal 2 damage, knockdown
"Knockdown" would be an ability that whilst dealing damage it also slams the opponent into the ground, giving him a concussion and disabling a permanent ability for a turn. This as a measure to artifacts and other engines (Skellige to me is a faction that shouldn`t good at control, but instead specializes on slowing down the opponent). Again here the option of discarding the card for thinning and big value, or playing it from hand for low value and an effect that might prove more useful. Meaningful choices and a variety of answers for problems.
So this is it, my Christmas- wish list for Shupe. As I wrote before, this is a short version, so please don`t nail me on the details. There are many more areas for the game to improve, like old abilities that are missing and new ones that need to be added, meaningful use of the graveyard, leader abilities, etc. But c`mon, look at the wall of text. If you`ve managed it this far without shaving in-between, you obviously haven`t gone through puberty yet.
To summarize, things I`d like to see:
- Readjustment to the pre-HC card values
- Third row as described above
- Consistency; ability to manipulate the hand that is dealt to the player
- Structure and identity that are presented trough stats and abilities for all factions, archetypes, units AS PER THE LORE!
This last part - the lore - is extremely important, as a lot of the cards just look and feel disconnected from it. Right now Nilfgardian units don`t feel more powerful than any others, because they aren`t, the stats don`t show it. Four is equal four is equal four is equal four. Scoiatel troops don`t feel sneaky or slippery or like they`d shower you with arrows from the trees, because there aren`t abilities that would represent this.
And one last - last thing that makes me uninterested in Gwent right now: boring abilities (boost and damage, damage and boost...). This is most pronounced on the legendary cards, that are mainly dull and unimaginative. Just look at gold - Eskel: that is a bronze ability at best, requires no setup and with little satisfying payoff. There are three units in Gerald:Professional, Leo Bonhart and Eyck of Denesle that do pretty much the same thing. That`s not the stuff I expect from a gold unit.
Now let me be constructive here and give another example how I`d like CDPR to translate the lore into the Gwent mechanics. Look at Gaunter O`Dimm; another character that simply destroys units. Boring. What does O`Dimm do in Witcher 3? He gives great power, then takes it away, with a hefty price. So:
Gaunter O`Dimm, 7 Power
Melee: Deploy - Discard two cards and give a unit 15 armor
Ranged: Deploy - Discard two cards and boost a unit by 15
Base: Deploy - Boost a unit by 2 and give it immune. After 2 turns, destroy it
See, the two-cards-discard is the price to be paid, just as the lore dictates. Mechanically it also prevents Gaunter from being the last card played, giving the opposing player a chance to respond to it. The card fits into multiple decks and gives you meaningful choices. It can work in a discard deck, or in a armor-centric deck. It can be an enabler for engines. But it can also be a safety net for any sort of swarm deck that is brick-prone. Choices.
Gold cards should incentivize hard choices, calculated risks, gambles. There just aren`t many of those in the game right now. There is no choice in playing Caretaker on the melee row - there`s nothing to gain from it. You`ll always play it on the ranged row.
Obviously these are just the most pressing things that annoy me about the game in this iteration. But I`m spent now, so in closing: I really hope CDPR makes some (all?) of these things happen, because I`m convinced if they create a solid foundation for the game, in the long run, Gwent will destroy the competition. I don`t want to go back to the other games economy, or art. I don`t want to ever again open a pack that doesn`t give me the choice of the fifth card.
Submitted December 22, 2018 at 07:32PM by nessuno99 http://bit.ly/2LvYMdc
No comments:
Post a Comment