You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It was you who said that 50% of skill is deckbuilding. By definition, the other 50% cannot be non-skill. Luck is not skill, so it can't be part of your 100% skill total. Experience is not skill but a way to get it.
Where am I wrong?
Where am I wrong?
NomanPeopled;n10467192 said:@ GenLiu:
I'vve just made my first reveal deck without recourse to outside sources, and it has Attre. Perhaps it just looks good to players who have no clue about reveal? I mean, it's exactly the sort of card which every newbie would throw into their first reveal deck ...
Just to make things clear, I wasn't saying that everyone playing Var Attre is a netdecker and has no skill, far from it. We all get to test it at some point and yes, it's a pretty alluring card when you don't know much about reveal and try to make our own version of it. I fully respect you for making a deck on your own, that's definitely the best way of playing a ccg.
And that's what I meant with MTG players vs Gwent players. MTG players who still play the game are mostly people who're in love for ccg (after 2O years of existence, there is not much casual left) so pretty much all of us has some deck building experience and even for those who don't, nobody in this community would play a deck without having a close look at the deck first and at least figure out if the deck is viable or not.
I'm sure you'll go a long way in this game because, again, building your own decks will give you a lot of knowledge about said deck and the game in general.
It's very important and definitely what makes the difference between netdeckers and deck builders, the second part having a much larger learning curve because we analyse the game in it's core and understand how the engine works.
Thanks, I appreciate your response.
Part of why I play netdecks is to find out how to disrupt or outplay them. Yeah, I want a ranking as high as possible, but I basically want it for the kegs, and two more or less don't really matter. I'll just do whatever I'm in the mood for. Sometimes that's playing a netdeck, sometimes it's a fun pile that I can't recall having won a game with; and sometimes it's constructing 4 Johnny in 4 factions or thinking about what tech card to include in a netdeck. Fun activities all.
Part of why I play netdecks is to find out how to disrupt or outplay them. Yeah, I want a ranking as high as possible, but I basically want it for the kegs, and two more or less don't really matter. I'll just do whatever I'm in the mood for. Sometimes that's playing a netdeck, sometimes it's a fun pile that I can't recall having won a game with; and sometimes it's constructing 4 Johnny in 4 factions or thinking about what tech card to include in a netdeck. Fun activities all.
StrykerxS77x;n10466902 said:Perhaps some but it is true that complaining about this accomplishes nothing. The OP wishes for something that is impossible. All you can do is ask CDPR to make more variety and balance better.
You can do a lot more than that, you can demonstrate with your wallet, by refusing to purchase anymore kegs. If enough people were to start doing this, then CDPR would think twice in the future before engaging in money grubbing schemes
What money-grabbing scheme? How is people netdecking as they do in every single other even remotely comparable game CDPR's money-grabbing scheme?
nunqmuo;n10468532 said:Yeah. As if people don't use netdecks in casual LUL If anything there is more netdecks so in casual than in ranked.
It is quite clear that you did not read my post correctly or that you failed to comprehend it entirely. When there are rewards on the line, people will do anything to get them (including the daily rewards that can be earned in the casual mode). Also, netdecking wasn't an issue during the closed beta back when the ranked mode didn't exist.
The internet is full of guides for single player games. People enjoy winning even when there's nothing on the line. But sure, giving more incentives to win will of course increase motivation to win.
Just curious; I wasn't around during closed, so how often were cards changed? Were there popular platforms for sharing deck ideas and strategies?
Just curious; I wasn't around during closed, so how often were cards changed? Were there popular platforms for sharing deck ideas and strategies?
Jezaboom2;n10471402 said:You can do a lot more than that, you can demonstrate with your wallet, by refusing to purchase anymore kegs. If enough people were to start doing this, then CDPR would think twice in the future before engaging in money grubbing schemes
I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
GenLiu;n10466932 said:Netdecking in Gwent and MTG doesn't have the same meaning.
From my personal experience, I've never met a MTG player who were playing a deck without exactly knowing why and without rethinking the global strategy and make their own adjustements.
For the most part, players who netdeck in Gwent simply copy/past something they saw on the internet without even trying to figure out if the deck works or if they need to change something.
Proof : Look at the number of people playing Henry Var Attre in Reveal when this card is easily the worst silver that have ever been printed for this archetype.
Do you play reveal? Henry is not a bad card. Not even close.
GenLiu;n10470512 said:Just to make things clear, I wasn't saying that everyone playing Var Attre is a netdecker and has no skill, far from it. We all get to test it at some point and yes, it's a pretty alluring card when you don't know much about reveal and try to make our own version of it. I fully respect you for making a deck on your own, that's definitely the best way of playing a ccg.
And that's what I meant with MTG players vs Gwent players. MTG players who still play the game are mostly people who're in love for ccg (after 2O years of existence, there is not much casual left) so pretty much all of us has some deck building experience and even for those who don't, nobody in this community would play a deck without having a close look at the deck first and at least figure out if the deck is viable or not.
I'm sure you'll go a long way in this game because, again, building your own decks will give you a lot of knowledge about said deck and the game in general.
It's very important and definitely what makes the difference between netdeckers and deck builders, the second part having a much larger learning curve because we analyse the game in it's core and understand how the engine works.
The problem with netdecking in this game versus MTG is that the popular decks so far this season are borderline mindless to play and autopilot themselves.
Play the mangonel then reveal cards. Discard the elf that has a discard effect. Spam scorch/artefact compression/schirru/mandrake and then aglais/eithne and spam them so more. You can seriously just copy the list and autopilot to rank 19+ or you can try to play something with more interactions/thought and just watch it all get eaten up by scorch spam or reset by mandrake/artefact compression/witch hunter.
There is no way to protect your large units/buffed units/combos so there is no incentive to play them. Just play something easy that resets and blasts everything off the board and autopilot your games with minimal thought other than "play my big things last" or "play bear man, play bear, kill bear man, play bear man again".
@liezldieldee:
A lot of the non-netdecks aren't any tougher to play.
And like I said, netdecking is not limited to powerful decks to beat.
But actually I have a similar problem when it comes to deck building in Gwent.
The reason why I enjoyed deckbuilding more in MtG (I played Legacy) is that it's by design more modular. Not only does it have more cards per year, but the game seems to be less structured around specific archetypes, and their archetypical mechanics are less insular. Like, you can put Cynthia in a non-reveal deck but none of the other reveal enablers or targets will ever make it. This is typical of many Gwent archetypes, inluding fringe ones.
Since most cards with non-basic effects are silver or gold, many quirky interactions are reduced to being tacked onto a more or less predesigned bronze core.
Of course, Gwent is still young; I'm very curious to see whether they'll be expanding on archetypes to the point where one has to do more than choose the three best out of four reveal triggers or similar problems. They do seem to have made a conscious decision to keep the card pool small though.
Another problem is the hugely increased consistency in comparison to MtG. First you draw half your deck (took me a while to wrap my head around that), then you mulligan with the luxury of blacklisting, and then you run tutors. Oh yeah, and being land flooded or land screwed? None of that.
The lack of a resource system as a balancing tool shifts the balancing to the tutor target more than the tutor itself. And so pre-made tutor chains emerge. Decks with increased consistency thanks to tutors also put pressure on other decks to increase theirs to compete. And if they don't have a tutor chain, odds are that they can't. Like, when was the last time you saw Thunder outside a deck that couldn't tutor it, netdeck or not?
A lot of the non-netdecks aren't any tougher to play.
And like I said, netdecking is not limited to powerful decks to beat.
But actually I have a similar problem when it comes to deck building in Gwent.
The reason why I enjoyed deckbuilding more in MtG (I played Legacy) is that it's by design more modular. Not only does it have more cards per year, but the game seems to be less structured around specific archetypes, and their archetypical mechanics are less insular. Like, you can put Cynthia in a non-reveal deck but none of the other reveal enablers or targets will ever make it. This is typical of many Gwent archetypes, inluding fringe ones.
Since most cards with non-basic effects are silver or gold, many quirky interactions are reduced to being tacked onto a more or less predesigned bronze core.
Of course, Gwent is still young; I'm very curious to see whether they'll be expanding on archetypes to the point where one has to do more than choose the three best out of four reveal triggers or similar problems. They do seem to have made a conscious decision to keep the card pool small though.
Another problem is the hugely increased consistency in comparison to MtG. First you draw half your deck (took me a while to wrap my head around that), then you mulligan with the luxury of blacklisting, and then you run tutors. Oh yeah, and being land flooded or land screwed? None of that.
The lack of a resource system as a balancing tool shifts the balancing to the tutor target more than the tutor itself. And so pre-made tutor chains emerge. Decks with increased consistency thanks to tutors also put pressure on other decks to increase theirs to compete. And if they don't have a tutor chain, odds are that they can't. Like, when was the last time you saw Thunder outside a deck that couldn't tutor it, netdeck or not?
StrykerxS77x;n10472902 said:Do you play reveal? Henry is not a bad card. Not even close.
I do play reveal (in fact I play pretty much every archetype of Gwent), it's the deck I have the higher win ratio with and frankly Henry is terrible (and believe me, I tested him....that was a torture, my win ratio got butchered but I did).
So, yes, on paper he's insane, 9 power silver that deal 2 damage to every revealed units in your opponent's hand and boosts all friendly units in yours...Pretty easy to get huge value out of him right?...
Except in practice this guy is massively situational, there is many situations (almost every games in fact) were something is gonna go wrong, like your opponent has too many special cards, or you just revealed spies (just for recall, 9O% of the community is playing Silver spies) or you don't have enough reveal effects to get enough value out of him or by the time you play him, your opponent played all the reveal cards he had in hand...I could keep going with this list for the entire night but you got the point.
And not only that but he's so easy to play around. He's such a low tempo play that you can play him and fall behind on points and your opponent can just mulligan the cards you hit with him (with spells or just at the end of a round).
One more thing, in order to get the full potential out of this card you have to play 3 Alchemists, which is a significant price to pay and he's akward with Venendal (either you lose value out of one or the other) and Daerlan (because they can't be revealed and in your hand at the same time). Also, the most reliable way to counter him, from your opponent's stand point, is to simply play the reveal match up, which is never a good thing (he would be better if at least he had a mechanic that forces your opponent to keep his revealed card in hand but this is obviously not the case).
Last edited:
GenLiu;n10474662 said:I do play reveal (in fact I play pretty much every archetype of Gwent), it's the deck I have the higher win ratio with and frankly Henry is terrible (and believe me, I tested him....that was a torture, my win ratio got butchered but I did).
So, yes, on paper he's insane, 9 power silver that deal 2 damage to every revealed units in your opponent's hand and boosts all friendly units in yours...Pretty easy to get huge value out of him right?...
Except in practice this guy is massively situational, there is many situations (almost every games in fact) were something is gonna go wrong, like your opponent has too many special cards, or you just revealed spies (just for recall, 9O% of the community is playing Silver spies) or you don't have enough reveal effects to get enough value out of him or by the time you play him, your opponent played all the reveal cards he had in hand...I could keep going with this list for the entire night but you got the point.
And not only that but he's so easy to play around. He's such a low tempo play that you can play him and fall behind on points and your opponent can just mulligan the cards you hit with him (with spells or just at the end of a round).
One more thing, in order to get the full potential out of this card you have to play 3 Alchemists, which is a significant price to pay and he's akward with Venendal (either you lose value out of one or the other) and Daerlan (because they can't be revealed and in your hand at the same time). Also, the most reliable way to counter him, from your opponent's stand point, is to simply play the reveal match up, which is never a good thing (he would be better if at least he had a mechanic that forces your opponent to keep his revealed card in hand but this is obviously not the case).
Reveal has a lot of issues in general but once those get worked out I say that Henry will be used. Aside from the points he generates he also resets your fire scorpions which is nice.
NomanPeopled;n10474562 said:@liezldieldee: A lot of the non-netdecks aren't any tougher to play. And like I said, netdecking is not limited to powerful decks to beat.
I disagree with this statement. Custom decks (i.e. those that do not just alter one or two cards from a tier 1 net-deck) are always tougher to play with, because they usually require reactive strategies.
StrykerxS77x;n10475192 said:Reveal has a lot of issues in general but once those get worked out I say that Henry will be used. Aside from the points he generates he also resets your fire scorpions which is nice.
It's nice but not mind blowing.
Unless CDPR makes a mechanic that benefits from concealing cards, I don't see Henry working ever.
Just my opinion but I don't think reveal has that many issues. A well built reveal deck is pretty solid at any point of the game.
Last edited:
GenLiu;n10475422 said:It's nice but not mind blowing.
Unless CDPR makes a mechanic that benefits from concealing cards, I don't see Henry working ever.
Just my opinion but I don't think reveal has that many issues. A well built reveal deck is pretty solid at any point of the game.
Reveal is probably the easiest archetype for me to beat currently in the game. They are inconsistent and predictable.
@ Philologus:
Do you have any data on that?
Like I said, I am somewhat fuzzy on how to tell a custom deck from a netdeck given that there's no way of telling, say, netdecked Vipers from self-made ones, so if I go simply by what's popular or more obscure, that does not seem the case to me. Perhaps you could give me some examples of what you'd consider a custom deck, and an idea of what constitutes a netdeck?
It may be the case that custom decks by and large are currently or even generally more reactive, but there is nothing in the process of deckbuilding that necessitates it.
Certainly I've build custom decks that weren't reactive; actually I've made a habit of having at least one particularly easy-to-play casual deck around for when I want to kick back and relax.
Plus, a number of netdecks are also reactive or partly reactive, and some can act proactively as well as reactively. Netdecks aren't by definition top decks either, anyone can netdeck complex custom deck if they choose to. (Of course, if you do, your opponent won't suspect you of netdecking ...)
Do you have any data on that?
Like I said, I am somewhat fuzzy on how to tell a custom deck from a netdeck given that there's no way of telling, say, netdecked Vipers from self-made ones, so if I go simply by what's popular or more obscure, that does not seem the case to me. Perhaps you could give me some examples of what you'd consider a custom deck, and an idea of what constitutes a netdeck?
It may be the case that custom decks by and large are currently or even generally more reactive, but there is nothing in the process of deckbuilding that necessitates it.
Certainly I've build custom decks that weren't reactive; actually I've made a habit of having at least one particularly easy-to-play casual deck around for when I want to kick back and relax.
Plus, a number of netdecks are also reactive or partly reactive, and some can act proactively as well as reactively. Netdecks aren't by definition top decks either, anyone can netdeck complex custom deck if they choose to. (Of course, if you do, your opponent won't suspect you of netdecking ...)
StrykerxS77x;n10475882 said:Reveal is probably the easiest archetype for me to beat currently in the game. They are inconsistent and predictable.
It's because most players just netdeck reveal lists which aren't good right now and since they don't even try to question the list and make change on their own, they lose with it and think it's because of the archetype.
We're in a spot were reveal have all the tools it needs to be consistent and viable but you have to be creative with this deck because in order to get the upper hand you have to mix some reveal specific cards with others that supports the global strategy.
An other example of a units that the vast majority of reveal players run and shouldn't (appart from Var Attre) is Vrygheff. And don'tget me wrong, the card is pretty good but it just doesn't fit in reveal because this archetype as always been favored on round one and that card significantly support the early game (and tend to be the worst possible top deck later on which isn't what the archetype need at all). And it even make the archetype more predictable, as you mentioned, before this card was a thing, the reveal player could go Mangonel or something fancy if they don't hold one, now it's Mangonel or Mangonel...so if you don't have a removal spell in your opening hand just fish for one.
Reveal has always been an archetype that had powerful round one but lost some tempo on the late game, Vrygheff is overkill at this point, this is not what reveal needs.