Which mode to play to face equal opponents

[HenryBukowski]

Which mode to play to face equal opponents

Since reaching Rank 10 and unlocking ranked mode I have continued playing casual but now I feel like my opponents have changed a lot.

Pretty much all the way up to rank 10 we were all largely playing starter or cheap decks with the odd card we'd opened from a keg. I've pretty much only played the wild hunt frost deck. But then the hotfix weakened this deck and on top of that pretty much all opponents seem to have refined decks with all the gold cards needed for the archetype. When I play an opponent with similar cards I have a good win rate but I usually lose when I face an opponent with more gold cards and in casual that's most of the time.

As a result its getting harder to get through my daily rewards and it's discouraging. So what is the best place to do this? How does the bottom end of ranked (which I haven't played yet) compare to casual?

Thanks

 

[lomvicmarko]

Well when I started I milled cards since I didn't want to lose because i didn't have complete deck and my opponent did. I doesn't matter where you play if you don't have complete deck you are in for some bad times. So there is two options you are either going to farm ranked for those sweet kegs(I advise you to do this) and don't mind matches that you couldn't possibly win just keep rolling you can achieve rank 15 at worst. Or you can mill cards if you know what you are doing and get solid deck to climb ladder while having fun matches.

I milled even leaders and I don't regret it but If you don't know what you are getting your self into don't do it on your main account. Maybe you can make new account and try it out there.

 

[Lisandre]

I'm having exactly the same problem as the OP. I'm a casual player, and don't have any competitive dck,( just a pale try to a SK discard one). Untill level 9 my matches were very ok, but since yesterday, when I reached level 10, I'm facing people with 8-10 levels more than me, with full compettive decks in casual. I barely can win one round now and then, and it's becoming a real pain to get all the six ones.

 

[WitchPlougher]

ranked matchmaking will be more fair for you, it will help you expand your collection faster because of the sweet rewards and at low rank you have nothing to lose, go casual only when you experiment with a new deck

EDIT: they also recently made it so that you climb ranks even with a horrible winrate, so definitely go ranked with no worries

 

[Archpriest]

It's always ranked. Always...

Unless you have top players on your friends list

 

[TheShift]

I'm with everyone here.
go rank

 

[rctboy95]

No idea tbh, casual matchmaking still seems rather broken so maybe ranked is the best. But that's the worst for testing new decks and you'll only get the boring unskilled meta decks. Difficult dicision.

 

[pbsk8]

After unlocking ranked, 5 days after OP started, I went against people way over my rank, like 8 or 10. It was a real pain to climb to rank 11. And every victory gave me +22 and defeat was -49!!!

I have been playing casual all this time until 5 days ago, because I realized I was going against people even on top 10! Stomp after stomp.

Then I went back to ranked and for my surprise I face people of my same rank. Now I am rank 16.

But I dont understand how many points I get or lose for victory and defeat now, until rank 15 I lose -7 but now is -22? Is this correct?

 

[Moridin2244]

Low level ranked will give you a more fair challenge then randomly going into the jungle that is casual.

 

[RKane.]

Like others said, ranked all the way even if you lose more than you win. Personal perspective, refrain from milling whole factions. Keg drops and time will form new decks for variety's sake.

 

[supafreaky]

casual doesn't even offer a hint of match balancing. I'm with the majority. Go ranked. I don't even go to casual to test a new deck or strategy.

 

[Vpettijohnjr]

None. This game dicks around with the win/loss ratio. If you win two ranked games in a row, look out, they're going to pair you with decks specifically to beat you for about 70+% of your proceeding games.

I won 3 ranked earlier today (got me within one game of rank 16). My next 6 GAMES (SIX. As in the number after 5.) were ALL against the same kind of deck putting up the same kind of power that my deck couldn't win against. Finally I just turned it off. (Which is a real unique way to keep customers around, might I add.)

I know it's rigged to be that way because NOT ONE of them was a consume deck. (Which I beat with some ease.) Don't tell me I went 6 "random" games without seeing a consume deck.

Too much meddling behind the scenes of this one. End the "random" pairing (I feel like a fool for saying that, even as soaked in sarcasm as it is) and give us lobbies where we can choose who to challenge. People are going to eventually catch on and leave.

 

[supafreaky]

None. This game dicks around with the win/loss ratio. If you win two ranked games in a row, look out, they're going to pair you with decks specifically to beat you for about 70+% of your proceeding games.

I won 3 ranked earlier today (got me within one game of rank 16). My next 6 GAMES (SIX. As in the number after 5.) were ALL against the same kind of deck putting up the same kind of power that my deck couldn't win against. Finally I just turned it off. (Which is a real unique way to keep customers around, might I add.)

I know it's rigged to be that way because NOT ONE of them was a consume deck. (Which I beat with some ease.) Don't tell me I went 6 "random" games without seeing a consume deck.

Too much meddling behind the scenes of this one. End the "random" pairing (I feel like a fool for saying that, even as soaked in sarcasm as it is) and give us lobbies where we can choose who to challenge. People are going to eventually catch on and leave.

I am normally the one of the most vocal naysayers regarding gwent match balancing, but in this case you be wrong bud. You are quite correct in your assessment that a game that ensures losses would never gain player support or loyalty. That's why gwent doesn't do it. I am not an elite player, but I have more than enough ranked matches to know there is no hidden "screw the player" agenda. I've gone on an over 10 game winning streak, I've got my ass whooped repeatedly, and I've alternated between the 2. I'd say a good 40% of my losses just came from drawing a shitty hand. And just to clarify, maybe 5% of the decks I see daily are consume.

basically, you're tired of losing to better players, so your suggestion is to allow you to choose your opponent so you can pick one you know your deck is strong against.

 

[TjTonks]

5% of decks you see daily are consume? No way that's true. More like 75%

 

[Vpettijohnjr]

I am normally the one of the most vocal naysayers regarding gwent match balancing, but in this case you be wrong bud. You are quite correct in your assessment that a game that ensures losses would never gain player support or loyalty. That's why gwent doesn't do it. I am not an elite player, but I have more than enough ranked matches to know there is no hidden "screw the player" agenda. I've gone on an over 10 game winning streak, I've got my ass whooped repeatedly, and I've alternated between the 2. I'd say a good 40% of my losses just came from drawing a shitty hand. And just to clarify, maybe 5% of the decks I see daily are consume.

basically, you're tired of losing to better players, so your suggestion is to allow you to choose your opponent so you can pick one you know your deck is strong against.

Care to tell where you came up with the assumption that choosing opponents would allow me to play someone my deck is strong against?

I could wait patiently for you to answer that but I'll save us all the trouble. I didn't, that was your assumption, and when you assume blah blah blah.

I said (Quite simply) that we should have the option to challenge whoever we want. You don't know what kind of deck you're playing now until the game starts, so why change that?

The lower the rank you challenge the less RP it's worth. This isn't re-inventing the wheel here, not sure why you decided to take it an entirely different direction.

Oh, and consume decks 5% of the time? lol.

lol.

 

[supafreaky]

Care to tell where you came up with the assumption that choosing opponents would allow me to play someone my deck is strong against?

I could wait patiently for you to answer that but I'll save us all the trouble. I didn't, that was your assumption, and when you assume blah blah blah.

I said (Quite simply) that we should have the option to challenge whoever we want. You don't know what kind of deck you're playing now until the game starts, so why change that?

The lower the rank you challenge the less RP it's worth. This isn't re-inventing the wheel here, not sure why you decided to take it an entirely different direction.

Oh, and consume decks 5% of the time? lol.

lol.

If you have no idea what deck the other guy has, it's no different than right now. If you did know what deck you were challenging, you said yourself you were strong vs. consume. Challenging who you want isn't a bad idea. You can challenge your friends already. But you should only be able to challenge someone +/- 1 rank from yours. Which would end up being so similar to what we have now that there's no point in changing it.

And I stand corrected. Out of approx. 20-25 matchs last night, I ran into consume decks twice. So I'll be generous and say 10%.