Let us choose decks we don't want to play against!

[mortimerMarshall]

Let us choose decks we don't want to play against!

Why not have a system where we can change who we want to play against. So if I didn't want to play another game with the absolute ridiculously op monster deck or the often impossible to counter nilfguard. You don't have to. Choose that I want to play sk, st and nr then choose your deck and go. I think a lot of people would prefer not to was time in un-enjoyable games against decks that are bs. (Especially If cdpr refuses to balance monsters and continues to nerf NR)

P.s. to everyone who feels compelled to voice how much you don't like the idea please read the whole thread and see how I now agreed this would be a bad idea.

 

[NlelithZ44]

It's like playing Rock-Paper-Scissors, but you forbid your opponent to use two of these guestures... Monsters are not OP, same goes for NG. It's just your deck is weak against them, that's all. And no deck should be universally good against every other.

 

[arz0]

you cant just ignore the decks you dislike.
if your struggling to counter said decks, make some changes to your own, or rethink the way you play against those decks.

its not a question of sticking you head in the sand.

 

[DMaster2]

Why not have a system where we can change who we want to play against. So if I didn't want to play another game with the absolute ridiculously op monster deck or the often impossible to counter nilfguard. You don't have to. Choose that I want to play sk, st and nr then choose your deck and go. I think a lot of people would prefer not to was time in un-enjoyable games against decks that are bs. (Especially If cdpr refuses to balance monsters and continues to nerf NR)

It *may* be reasonable in casual, but in ranked is a no-no

 

[Archpriest]

It *may* be reasonable in casual, but in ranked is a no-no

Ugh, I hate to be the "git gud" guy but it shouldn't be an option anywhere.

 

[TheShift]

There is no point in the game,if this was to happen

 

[Rawls]

+1 to please no. I generally build decks that are likely to counter the decks I will most often see. That leaves me vulnerable to certain other decks. When I see them I know I'm going to have a hard time. I still play them out (and even win sometimes). Such is the nature of strategy. Just clicking I don't want to play against decks that I know I'll be weak against would cause serious ramifications to the entire balance of the game. It would be impossible to accurately rank players in ranked mode. So it's 100% a no go there. Even in casual it could cause serious matchmaking problems, make finding worthy opponents more difficult and would by definition reduce gameplay variety (which is bad).

Also, unless you are going to un-click an entire faction, implementing the mechanic would be very problematic. How does one define "weather deck," does 3 weather cards make it a weather deck? Does first light count? Do you define it by specific cards ... does that mean you never want to play any deck with Kayran, nekkars, Katakan, or Vran Warrior? It would be a mess to balance well.

Just please no.

 

[Mivo]

If you could pick your opponents, a lot of players would only select factions that their decks are strong against, and it wouldn't even work so well because ideally there are multiple viable decks/flavors available for each faction. It would definitely make waiting times longer, plus the issue with estimating one's ranking (as Rawls mentioned above) if you could just deselect hard match-ups. Learning how to deal with challenging opponents is a better approach than avoiding difficult opponents. And like in all card games: sometimes you face opponents you can't beat well (or at all) and you gotta adjust. If net deck X is super popular and your favorite deck is very weak against it, consider playing a different deck for a while. Factions here aren't like characters or classes in MMOs where you can't realistically just change classes if the current state of game balance isn't working in your favor. You can easily "join them" or play a deck that performs a bit better than your favorite.

 

[mortimerMarshall]

Okay I concede that choosing who to play against would be a bad idea due to balancing the decks. I also admit that it was simply a reaction to what I believe to be imbalance between factions such as the between round bonuses that nilfguard, Monsters and sometimes ST(these are getting to swap cards each round, keeping one relentless and sometimes choosing who goes first in round 2 and 3). Also it's a reaction to the uselessness of many NR cards and the reaction to the fact there are other tactics of certain factions with no counter, like weather decks, which by limiting clear skies to one row it makes it almost impossible for even the best made decks to overcome the tactic. Personally, just for transparency, I play NR and I win quite a few matches because I make my tactics adaptable to all sorts of scenarios and after looking at some plays there are an extremely limited if any ways to overcome weather decks and for people who use this tactic have no good way of being countered and don't bother to adapt. Without clear skies being buffed its the be all and end all for tactics which ruins ranking as you aren't changing and adapting your tactics in a tactical game but everyone just has to change around monsters.

P.s. thanks for responding guys

 

[Lantea]

Bad idea, just no.

 

[Riven-Twain]

I'm inclined to agree this could lead to some issues. Another solution would probably fit better, such as balancing the cards a bit more, or providing more potential counter-measure strategies, so that players don't dread merely encountering a specific faction, every time they see it appear.

 

[Masoterian]

i dont understand how can someone to propose this. stop whining and git gud.

 

[Tamacountry13]

That honestly makes no sense. People would just make a deck that completly counters a faction and just constantly verse that faction

 

[Knightlon]

I think it's good idea - for practice AI opponents only.

 

[trulez]

No.

 

[LadyAly]

Reminds me of a quote from Dragon Age's Cassandra : " DEAL .... WITH ...IT...."

 

[Marcin Momot]

I think this has been already addressed by a lot of folks who voiced their concerns in this thread regarding such feature. It would also really complicate things for everyone and create some weird trends with online matchmaking.

 

[Heretik76]

I think a lot of people would prefer not to was time in un-enjoyable games against decks that are bs

So if people read this you understand were he is coming from. There's a serious issue with a particular faction in the game at this point. Pretty reasonable. As far as the solution goes i agree with the following more or less...

I generally build decks that are likely to counter the decks I will most often see. That leaves me vulnerable to certain other decks

This is the META, in other words. This is early stages of the game, so the Meta will always be shifting as balancing goes and i do hope Monsters will be addressed soon.

solution would probably fit better, such as balancing the cards a bit more, or providing more potential counter-measure strategies, so that players don't dread merely encountering a specific faction, every time they see it appear.

Exactly.

 

[nightweaver]

Why not have a system where we can change who we want to play against. So if I didn't want to play another game with the absolute ridiculously op monster deck or the often impossible to counter nilfguard. You don't have to. Choose that I want to play sk, st and nr then choose your deck and go. I think a lot of people would prefer not to was time in un-enjoyable games against decks that are bs. (Especially If cdpr refuses to balance monsters and continues to nerf NR)

P.s. to everyone who feels compelled to voice how much you don't like the idea please read the whole thread and see how I now agreed this would be a bad idea.

Aside from the obvious fact that this would probably kill the game.

How would you detect / select a certain deck from being that one you block?
Does it just look at the leader or does it account for every card? If so, what if one card is changed?

Have you put any thought in how this could be realised without breaking the game?

Also ... why make a suggestion for a system/option/feature if you don't even want/defend it?
Seems ... counter productive.

 

[mortimerMarshall]

How would you detect / select a certain deck from being that one you block?
Does it just look at the leader or does it account for every card? If so, what if one card is changed?

Have you put any thought in how this could be realised without breaking the game?

Also ... why make a suggestion for a system/option/feature if you don't even want/defend it?
Seems ... counter productive.

Firstly it would based on faction, I seriously think monsters have the biggest advantages just in base abilities and base cards. However I know how touchy some people are about their bs monster decks so I decided fine they can sit there and play weather every single game exploiting that one, at current, unbalanced feature and I can play with the other decks until monster or even weather changes either in the way to counter or the way damage is dealt. So I wanted to be able to play gwent and take out the repetitive games of weather making a 60-70 point swing after I pass, for instance. Just today I played six games IN A ROW where they had the God Damn same tactic that i, in most cases, couldn't counter. So I didn't think it would 'break the game' if I choose not to play against an unfair advantage without being forced to quit or loose.

And in answer to your question, after I posted I since listened to the responses I got and saw many people have very valid reasons it could tip the advantage the other way which is the opposite of what I wanted to do. So it wasn't counter productive at all, it raised issues, created discussion and I found out why this would be a bad idea.

And just to wrap up I know why this isn't a good idea and this would be a bad long term fix to an otherwise temporary problem.

Have a nice day.