Feedback, Meta too boring, Control too strong

[Koaalar.424]

Feedback, Meta too boring, Control too strong

Well, I already played a lot of Gwent but will quit now before I burn out and there might even be a chance that I won't come back when the game finally releases, which was my initial plan. And if I don't come back, I won't bother giving feedback, so I'll do it now.

As I said before there is sth about the game that limits versatility. After a new patch a meta develops and then it gets boring, because everyone just plays the same deck over and over again. All the other cards are pretty much dead. You face the same 2-3 decks over and over again. I think this might be because of deck limitation and the possibilty of deck thining. It's to easy to play the same cards and you always have them at your hand, which leads to cookie cutter decks with synergies that always work and have almost 0 chance of failing. Hence, people play these decks.

On the other hand, I think control is to strong in GWENT. Not just because of Radoviv control, but in general. It takes a lot to buff up cards or play out combos, and all this work can be destroyed in a single blow by weather, or the various ultrakillcards like scorch, borkh, igni, epidemic, weather, d-bomb. Alzur Thunder is a bronze card that takes out almost every silver card, lacerate takes off 3 strength of every card in a row ( CH , as a silver card on the other hand only adds 4, silver vs bronze). There are just too many tools to kill things off in this game.

I think what the game needs is a bigger minimum deck size. So many dead cards. With a bigger deck size, more tech cards would find a place into the decks. Quen, Blizzard, they don't have a place in the cookie cutter decks because they are too situational.

And lastly why I might not play the full game. If CDPR can't manage to get the meta balancing problems right, there will only be 1 deck that will be played by everyone after the wipe/game release. The strongest deck that existed before the wipe in open beta. With limited cards, everyone will start crafting the cards to play this deck because it will allow for the best winrate-> most scraps/ore. Which means it will be mirror match after mirror match.

And now I will play one last game.

and probably another one
another one
just one more

Spoiler

I think one more is fine

 

[TheShift]

I play casual. .and come across a lot of different deck types ..
outside of the added pressure of playing ranked games..
this is another reason why I don't play ranked

if your trying to get good stats..it's ALWAYS going to be the best deck builds you will come up against over and over again..I guess it's the price you pay for ranked games ?

 

[frbfree]

Honestly, I'm most looking forward to the Campaign Mode. I don't expect AI to be too Meta. It's not that I mind playing against you blokes, and I will likely continue to do so, but I am a sucker for a plot. So that will keep me around I think.

 

[Mivo]

if your trying to get good stats..it's ALWAYS going to be the best deck builds you will come up against over and over again..I guess it's the price you pay for ranked games?

I feel that it's also the price for using netdecks made by others. By the time they get posted, a lot of players jump onto the bandwagon and use the decks. The players who have the skill and knowledge to invent decks before they become netdecks will probably always have the edge, because they are less dependent on someone else publishing a deck list and a guide.

Case in point, there's this player who just this week got into the top-10 with his foglets weather-based deck, just when everyone else said that weather-based decks were dead. I feel that if the meta seems stale, it's because too many people copy decks and too few are inventing them. It's understandable too (I'm certainly more of a copycat than a inventor, too, at least at the time being), and like TheShift said, it comes with the territory of ranked playing where unsuccessful experimenting can cost you ranking points. Creativity can either reward you greatly or punish you, whereas netdecks are safer but probably prone to staleness.

 

[DMaster2]

Well, I already played a lot of Gwent but will quit now before I burn out and there might even be a chance that I won't come back when the game finally releases, which was my initial plan. And if I don't come back, I won't bother giving feedback, so I'll do it now.

As I said before there is sth about the game that limits versatility. After a new patch a meta develops and then it gets boring, because everyone just plays the same deck over and over again. All the other cards are pretty much dead. You face the same 2-3 decks over and over again. I think this might be because of deck limitation and the possibilty of deck thining. It's to easy to play the same cards and you always have them at your hand, which leads to cookie cutter decks with synergies that always work and have almost 0 chance of failing. Hence, people play these decks.

On the other hand, I think control is to strong in GWENT. Not just because of Radoviv control, but in general. It takes a lot to buff up cards or play out combos, and all this work can be destroyed in a single blow by weather, or the various ultrakillcards like scorch, borkh, igni, epidemic, weather, d-bomb. Alzur Thunder is a bronze card that takes out almost every silver card, lacerate takes off 3 strength of every card in a row ( CH , as a silver card on the other hand only adds 4, silver vs bronze). There are just too many tools to kill things off in this game.

I think what the game needs is a bigger minimum deck size. So many dead cards. With a bigger deck size, more tech cards would find a place into the decks. Quen, Blizzard, they don't have a place in the cookie cutter decks because they are too situational.

And lastly why I might not play the full game. If CDPR can't manage to get the meta balancing problems right, there will only be 1 deck that will be played by everyone after the wipe/game release. The strongest deck that existed before the wipe in open beta. With limited cards, everyone will start crafting the cards to play this deck because it will allow for the best winrate-> most scraps/ore. Which means it will be mirror match after mirror match.

And now I will play one last game.

and probably another one
another one
just one more

Spoiler

I think one more is fine

There will be always a meta. There will be always 2-3 decks that are most played. No matter what you do. It's the fate of every single ccg in existance.
Also you are complaining your opponent blow up your 30 strength buffed unit? Damn the dare to ruin your setup, he shouldn't try to win the game. I can say the same thing, why you should be allowed to stack stuff on a single unit without countermeasures? If you decide to play a "combo" deck, it's your job making sure your opponent can't ruin your play.
For example i've faced a foglet spam deck, that mardroeme a single foglet so igni and scorch can't nuke them after thunderbolt potion. Very clever, that's how you do it.

 

[Dejma93]

I am not familiar with any other CCG besides Gwent, but to me it seems that lack of variability is not developers' fault, it's because of nature of CCG which allows to crib really easily along with people who play with purpose of wining instead of having fun (or maybe winning is the only way they can have fun, which is sad). I play a lot of experimental builds, even in ranked mode I have never played a deck which was considered mainstream that given time... Sure sometimes it works (I am on my way towards rank 14 atm) sometimes I get smashed and easily loose >500 rating but f*** it. I wish more people embraced this attitude but I have lost any illusions about mankind long ago. Bigger deck size is double-edged weapon I think. It may bring increase in variability, however that would result only from increased RNG which is not really great idea (I don't know about you, but when a situation where neither me nor my opponent have cards before round 3 arises, I never feel good about the game, regardless of result, as it depends mostly on whos more lucky at drawing last card). I have no doubts that copying most successful decks would prevail even with increased deck size.
As of control being too strong, that was definitely true until recent patch, but with the las big update things got a bit better I think (you can clearly see that direction when looking at cards such as dol blathana archer, wyvern etc.) and now it's quite balanced imo, however I do admit that certain cards such as dbomb are able to burn huge amounts of points.

 

[Guest 3973540]

I play casual. .and come across a lot of different deck types .. outside of the added pressure of playing ranked games.. this is another reason why I don't play ranked

Excellent point. And, of course, it depends on the number of games per day. E.g. if you make 3 daily tiers, no wonder you know all decks

 

[4RM3D]

As I said before there is sth about the game that limits versatility

- Too small minimum deck size (only 25 cards)
- Can play only one card each turn
- Starting with 10 (+3 mulligan) cards, which is 40% (up to 52%) of the minimum deck size
- More predictable game flow (i.e. each player plays a card, eventually passes and tries to win the next round)

The thing is, though, all of the above is what makes Gwent -well- Gwent.

When you look at other CCG's like Hearthstone, the flow is completely different; most importantly:
- You start with fewer cards
- You can play more than one card each turn

This leads to games where you have to setup your play(tactics) and build towards it, while having a backup plan when you don't get the cards you'll need or the opponents plays differently than you expect. This results in much more versatility.

In Gwent, it's much easier to plan ahead and predict your opponent's moves. This leads to a more stale game.

There is no easy way around this without giving up what sets Gwent apart from other CCG's (for better or worse).

 

[DMaster2]

- Too small minimum deck size (only 25 cards)
- Can play only one card each turn
- Starting with 10 (+3 mulligan) cards, which is 40% (up to 52%) of the minimum deck size
- More predictable game flow (i.e. each player plays a card, eventually passes and tries to win the next round)

The thing is, though, all of the above is what makes Gwent -well- Gwent.

When you look at other CCG's like Hearthstone, the flow is completely different; most importantly:
- You start with fewer cards
- You can play more than one card each turn

This leads to games where you have to setup your play(tactics) and build towards it, while having a backup plan when you don't get the cards you'll need or the opponents plays differently than you expect. This results in much more versatility.

In Gwent, it's much easier to plan ahead and predict your opponent's moves. This leads to a more stale game.

There is no easy way around this without giving up what sets Gwent apart from other CCG's (for better or worse).

Not that it change much. I can tell all the 30 cards of a standard hearthstone deck just by seeing which class i'm playing against. It's much more fun on gwent where you aren't dead turn 5 because aggro. Sure there are strong decks but nothing you can't play around.

 

[RickMelethron]

As I said before there is sth about the game that limits versatility. After a new patch a meta develops and then it gets boring, because everyone just plays the same deck over and over again. All the other cards are pretty much dead. You face the same 2-3 decks over and over again. I think this might be because of deck limitation and the possibilty of deck thining. It's to easy to play the same cards and you always have them at your hand, which leads to cookie cutter decks with synergies that always work and have almost 0 chance of failing. Hence, people play these decks.

welcome to competitive card games... where math determines the most effective decks and people will play whatever has the higher consistency.

On the other hand, I think control is to strong in GWENT. Not just because of Radoviv control, but in general. It takes a lot to buff up cards or play out combos, and all this work can be destroyed in a single blow by weather, or the various ultrakillcards like scorch, borkh, igni, epidemic, weather, d-bomb. Alzur Thunder is a bronze card that takes out almost every silver card, lacerate takes off 3 strength of every card in a row ( CH , as a silver card on the other hand only adds 4, silver vs bronze). There are just too many tools to kill things off in this game.

without control decks, people would just play whatever buff deck was able to pull off the higher numbers... since gwent doesn't have a "time limit", which is the case for games like hearthstone and MTG (if you're not fast enough, you get overrun) control decks are able to thrive unchallenged.

I think what the game needs is a bigger minimum deck size. So many dead cards. With a bigger deck size, more tech cards would find a place into the decks. Quen, Blizzard, they don't have a place in the cookie cutter decks because they are too situational.

and then the whole game would be decided by the RNG of drawing the right tech against the right deck... "playing against weather monsters and first light/blizz potion is on the bottom of the deck? good luck next time, mate"