Is Monsters Most Peoples Favorite Faction?

[Skryba86]

Yes they are. Which is exactly why most people are drawn to them. Monsters are FAR and away the most forgiving and easy of the factions to play. You can make far more mistakes with Monsters than any other faction and still have a good chance of winning because of Monsters being badly balanced.

Monsters is the oldschool Zoo of GWENT and it shows. Badly.

Well, I obviously disagree, hence why I said so. Only faction I haven't piloted for quite a while with more than one different archtype build is SK, so I won't speak for them, but for ST, NG and NR, none of those proved any harder to play than MS for me at all.

I've lost games with MS on account of one single mistake. I've won games with the other factions despite becoming aware of a couple mistakes I made. And vice versa for all of that.

In all of the factions there are builds which are easier to pilot, builds which can be quite efficient in auto pilot to a certain extent (those that just wanna do their thing, regardless of what the opponent does) and builds which are harder to pilot and require more knowledge of the games mechanics. Monsters isn't any different from the others in that regard, IMO. They do favor proactive gameplay, instead of reactive, although that isn't synonymous with being easier to play at all, IMO.

As for the zoo comparison, basically no deck in gwent can take the approach of going all out and simply hoping that the opponent won't counter it and instead die in a couple turns. Thanks to the BO3 turn system, it obviously doesn't work like that and there's always a lot more to it than simply dropping high power, attacking and buffing if not blocked. But I don't really think it's fair to compare MTG archetypes with gwent anyway. Far too different.

I'd say the only deck that has ever developed up till now that I really really felt was far too dominant in auto pilot mode was SK axemen in the previous patch. Drop bears, drop axeman, drop frost > profit. Went wrong? No worries, I saved my khambi + shackles + hjalmar for T3.

 

[marcelgroot]

I find them boring most of the time when you play against them I keep a few clear skies in my hand thats the easiest defence against them and a few thunders in case they want to rez that arachas spawn card (forgot its name). Myself I dont like the weather cards at all they are such an to easy way to get a win. But perhaps if your new to the game and dont know all the good cards yet it could give you maybe a change to get easy wins. If you play for trying the best strategy against a player that does the same Monsters are a pretty boring deck yes.

 

[TheShift]

#MonstersLivesMatter

 

[wildkeny]

This voting is essentially biased. You are setting up having monster players voting against players from all other 4 factions. If you truly want the answer whether it is because it is fun vs. it is cheap, you should first restrict the voters to those who favors playing monster faction. Otherwise, the voting is utterly useless. You are asking one question in the title (whether monster is the favorite faction) but setting the voting for a different question (why it is the favorite assuming it is the most favorite faction). As a data scientist and statistician myself, the post just makes me cringing.

 

[KingPegasus]

I started monster because I couldn't beat the tutorial dagon deck, so I guessed it was the strongest... In this game, you need to mill stuff to build decks fast, so once I got rid of most other leaders, I am stuck with them. I started a second account with nr, I can say it is way easier to play. Monster is really hard and don't have much consistency due to not that many great tutor cards or draw mechanics. You play with what you have. Nr interact with the deck a lot more and you have much better chance to build different combo that you can try to actively get to. Or just run henselt and thin 6 cards in one go....

 

[Anen]

after CPDR remake all cards for OBT there is no different. monster and other faction popularity don't have different.
before ST ambush is the most difficult card to play and now ST the most weak and monster still have its popularity. in early OBT everyone use nilfgaard it has more popularity than CBT but now all back to monster.
Congratulation CPDR, you must nerf and make changes for another year

 

[Archpriest]

#MonstersLivesMatter

When it comes to Gwent, only Gold lives matter...

 

[D4mian]

I guess you guys are right.
I mean buffing and moving dwarves is very complicated game play.
Along with dropping huge pirates or dull blothanas in the 3rd is pretty complex gaming too..
Not to mention control decks..man those are really tough to play..just sit back and counter your opponent until you can drop a bloody baron in the 3rd.
And Let's no get started on nilfgaard..the toughest ones to play..must be real hard seeing all of your opponent's cards to adjust your play style and have an answer for every play they make...

You seem to have forgotten about Spies Emhyr/Calveit. They are way less forgiving than Monsters or Dorfs.

When it comes to Gwent, only Gold lives matter...

You triggered my Axemen PTSD :|

 

[Zjiin]

As for the zoo comparison, basically no deck in gwent can take the approach of going all out and simply hoping that the opponent won't counter it and instead die in a couple turns. Thanks to the BO3 turn system, it obviously doesn't work like that and there's always a lot more to it than simply dropping high power, attacking and buffing if not blocked.
.

Apart from thats basically exactly how consume plays, no? Hoping that your opponent just doesnt have the counter to the swarm and hyped-buff Vran. That whole deck is pretty much only hoping your opponent cant counter your hyped-buffed unit(s) and carry over.

SK axeman was hillariously broken last patch, which makes it even more telling that Monsters is MORE prevalant than SK was last patch because of the fact its super easy to pilot. Granted alot of the fault does fall at CDPRs fault for failing to understand the issue with carry-over that has caused problems for Monsters for months now. Theres a reason why Calaeno is in pretty much every monsters list going currently.

Too forgiving, too easy to abuse broken mechanics like carry over and cards that are generally just over-statted and push the whole "Have a counter or lose by round 1" issue too far.

 

[MooshieMooshie]

This voting is essentially biased. You are setting up having monster players voting against players from all other 4 factions. If you truly want the answer whether it is because it is fun vs. it is cheap, you should first restrict the voters to those who favors playing monster faction. Otherwise, the voting is utterly useless. You are asking one question in the title (whether monster is the favorite faction) but setting the voting for a different question (why it is the favorite assuming it is the most favorite faction). As a data scientist and statistician myself, the post just makes me cringing.

Assuming that you have a large enough sample size you should get an overall response rate that mirrors the player population. We don't know the mean % of monster play rate, however, from the interview I referenced (can be found here if you're interested http://www.gwentdb.com/news/129-is-the-monsters-faction-op-rethaz-responds ) we do know that even during metas where monsters was considered unplayable they were still the most popular faction by 20%.

We can also very easily parse out the other factions from the poll by dividing the 'monsters are not the most fun' option by the remaining number of factions, 4. Once we've done this we can compare the adjusted popularity of all the other factions to monsters. After doing this the current poll shows that monsters are rated as more fun than the other factions average by ~10%. I'll give you that it's a bit rough, but the current numbers do seem to indicate that more people do legitimately find monsters the most fun when compared to other factions. Of course the main problem is that the sample size is extremely small currently, and who knows, maybe monster lovers are also overly active on the forums. But, regardless the current results do seem to indicate that monsters are a bit above average when it comes to player enjoyment.

 

[Skryba86]

Apart from thats basically exactly how consume plays, no? Hoping that your opponent just doesnt have the counter to the swarm and hyped-buff Vran. That whole deck is pretty much only hoping your opponent cant counter your hyped-buffed unit(s) and carry over.

SK axeman was hillariously broken last patch, which makes it even more telling that Monsters is MORE prevalant than SK was last patch because of the fact its super easy to pilot. Granted alot of the fault does fall at CDPRs fault for failing to understand the issue with carry-over that has caused problems for Monsters for months now. Theres a reason why Calaeno is in pretty much every monsters list going currently.

Too forgiving, too easy to abuse broken mechanics like carry over and cards that are generally just over-statted and push the whole "Have a counter or lose by round 1" issue too far.

Well, if that's how your opponents play, just laying it down on the table and hoping you don't have a counter, then I wonder at what level you're playing. Also, have fun beating them, because there are about 3764646 counters to consume.

If you wanna discuss how the deck plays at a high enough level, in order to be successful and actually win consistently, then you just say so, and we can do that. Otherwise, explain to me exactly what the difference is, between hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to buffed up vrans and ekimaras, and hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your buffed up Reaver Hunters, or hopping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your queensguard, or hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your buffed up spotters and your cow carcasses, or hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your uber-huge-resilient dwarves.

Or is it the process of revealing cards, dropping a reaver and using your leader, dropping dwarves and buffing them to infinity or using your leader and then ressing your queensguard that you find a lot harder and so much more demanding than dropping your monsters and consuming? ^^'

Oh, and next you go on to say that monsters is supposedly more dominant than SK axemen because of how easy it is to pilot xD because axemen builds were so hard to pilot, right? X'D

Don't even know why I'm still having this discussion.

 

[wildkeny]

Assuming that you have a large enough sample size you should get an overall response rate that mirrors the player population. We don't know the mean % of monster play rate, however, from the interview I referenced (can be found here if you're interested http://www.gwentdb.com/news/129-is-the-monsters-faction-op-rethaz-responds ) we do know that even during metas where monsters was considered unplayable they were still the most popular faction by 20%.

We can also very easily parse out the other factions from the poll by dividing the 'monsters are not the most fun' option by the remaining number of factions, 4. Once we've done this we can compare the adjusted popularity of all the other factions to monsters. After doing this the current poll shows that monsters are rated as more fun than the other factions average by ~10%. I'll give you that it's a bit rough, but the current numbers do seem to indicate that more people do legitimately find monsters the most fun when compared to other factions. Of course the main problem is that the sample size is extremely small currently, and who knows, maybe monster lovers are also overly active on the forums. But, regardless the current results do seem to indicate that monsters are a bit above average when it comes to player enjoyment.

You agreed that you would need to divide the "not the most fun" part by 4, which in itself in not very accurate. Plus the intrinsic volunteer bias in any voting or survey, I am not sure how you can interpret the results meaningfully.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Well, if that's how your opponents play, just laying it down on the table and hoping you don't have a counter, then I wonder at what level you're playing. Also, have fun beating them, because there are about 3764646 counters to consume.

If you wanna discuss how the deck plays at a high enough level, in order to be successful and actually win consistently, then you just say so, and we can do that. Otherwise, explain to me exactly what the difference is, between hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to buffed up vrans and ekimaras, and hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your buffed up Reaver Hunters, or hopping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your queensguard, or hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your buffed up spotters and your cow carcasses, or hoping your opponent doesn't have the answer to your uber-huge-resilient dwarves.

Or is it the process of revealing cards, dropping a reaver and using your leader, dropping dwarves and buffing them to infinity or using your leader and then ressing your queensguard that you find a lot harder and so much more demanding than dropping your monsters and consuming? ^^'

Oh, and next you go on to say that monsters is supposedly more dominant than SK axemen because of how easy it is to pilot xD because axemen builds were so hard to pilot, right? X'D

Don't even know why I'm still having this discussion.

I think the point you're trying to make here is.... the point. Too many decks run on a simplified concept a chimpanzee could execute. Toss in the frequency of copy/pasting decks, which leads to redundant gameplay, and extended intervals between "fixes" and.... you get the idea. Gameplay nosedives from, "Oh, that was cool.", to, "Oh look, the same thing that happened the last 14 games with some variation in the decisions of the coinflip overlord, draws and elegant mulligan mechanics.". Rapidly....

 

[Skryba86]

But the thing is, that only applies until you're playing at a level where all of your decisions matter, where you can't just auto pilot and hope to succeed, and where actually running a build that's different in one or more key aspects than the most used build for the archetype you're playing actually may be the deciding factor in you taking the win via surprise factor and good decision making + bluffing.

In the end, the fact that you can auto pilot a netdecked list in the early stages of the game's competitive scenario is no different from most other TCG's and CCG's. And like with those other games, it's something that changes with the level of competition you're faced with and how much your opponent's demand of you, and you demand of them, IMO.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

But the thing is, that only applies until you're playing at a level where all of your decisions matter, where you can't just auto pilot and hope to succeed, and where actually running a build that's different in one or more key aspects than the most used build for the archetype you're playing actually may be the deciding factor in you taking the win via surprise factor and good decision making + bluffing.

In the end, the fact that you can auto pilot a netdecked list in the early stages of the game's competitive scenario is no different from most other TCG's and CCG's. And like with those other games, it's something that changes with the level of competition you're faced with and how much your opponent's demand of you, and you demand of them, IMO.

What are you basing this statement on, out of curiosity? Yes, thinking is important vs decent opponents. This doesn't mean every single card play matters as much as your statement implies. That is the entire point. Some of these decks require minimal thought to do well vs decent opponents at decent MMR. The entire point of certain builds being popular is they're easy to run, difficult to either keep pace with or counter well, and teching hard against them isn't viable. Sure, you cannot auto-pilot them. This doesn't mean they aren't faceroll to do well with.

 

[Skryba86]

What are you basing this statement on, out of curiosity? Yes, thinking is important vs decent opponents. This doesn't mean every single card play matters as much as your statement implies. That is the entire point. Some of these decks require minimal thought to do well vs decent opponents at decent MMR. The entire point of certain builds being popular is they're easy to run, difficult to either keep pace with or counter well, and teching hard against them isn't viable. Sure, you cannot auto-pilot them. This doesn't mean they aren't faceroll to do well with.

There are obviously decks which require more consideration put into early plays than others. A reactive deck, while not exactly harder to pilot than a proactive one, will require the user to think more thoroughly on how to counter his opponent's early plays, while the proactive player will try to establish his ground. That is the nature of reactive VS proactive, and control vs offensive builds.

Precisely because control-oriented builds play a much smaller number of proactive cards, they will also need to work around this by trying to maximize their hand.

As the game progresses, though, this changes. The reactive builds will have made it past early game and now will be on their preferred ground, with all of their options at their disposal, plenty of targets to neutralize and wider scope of how the round will play out, while the proactive player will have his work cut out for him trying to work around the disruption and actually deciding if he can push further, or if he needs to give up the turn.

In the end, though, deciding between when to pass, when to push further ahead, how and when to try and gain CA, how and when to disrupt/work around the disruption by equalizing your opponent's power values/scattering your own power values are decisions that are equally hard for the proactive and for the reactive play styles, and they're paramount for a consistent win rate.

Considering all of your opponent's reactive options, how and when they'll disrupt your plays and trying to play around that is as hard (sometimes harder even, but obviously sometimes easier as well) as considering your opponent's offense and how you can optimize your disruption options.

At a level where you need to consider all of that and play out in your mind how the round will progress with a couple or more plays in advance is when creative deck building better comes into play, and the key differences in your build may lead you to victory over an opponent that pilots a netdecked build which you know by heart.

Tldr: early plays are obviously more straightforward for a proactive build, and if it works out, then the game may be one of those where you kinda wanna roll your eyes and give up. But at a mid game phase and late game, it switches around, and if the reactive managed to stop the early game of the proactive one, then his plays become much more straightforward than the proactive player's, as the latter will need to carefully consider tons of options on how he'll be countered and what he can do to actually take the round, if he should go for the big swing, or give it up to go up in CA, etc. Most people don't consider this side, but if the early game goes well for the reactive player, then it can also easily turn into a "roll eyes" win as well, even though he's technically piloting the "harder to pilot" build.

 

[newbuschkoeter]

If monsters wouldn't be the flavor of the month faction nobody here would complain about how easy they're to play or that they're far easier to play than any other faction. Yes, they're a bit stronger then all other factions atm and that's why monters are a bit easier to play but they're not inherently less skill demanding in comparison to other factions.

One could've said the same thing about SK one patch and NG two patches ago. Both factions at their time were of course easier to play then the others because they were stronger than the others, it's always less difficult to play the faction which is stronger than the others. I mean, how skill demanding was dropping 5000 weahter cards and see your axeman grow, while your bears took care of everything else last patch? And how skill demanding was it to simply out tempo your opponent, while addtionally knowing all the cards you will draw two patches ago with NG?

The answer is - quite a bit, but of course less demnading than playing the other factions which had to play flawless (and had to have card luck) to beat them.

Just let time pass, monsters will be nerfed, and then we have a new discussion about the new fotm faction and why they're a cheap and easy to play faction.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

There are obviously decks which require more consideration put into early plays than others. A reactive deck, while not exactly harder to pilot than a proactive one, will require the user to think more thoroughly on how to counter his opponent's early plays, while the proactive player will try to establish his ground. That is the nature of reactive VS proactive, and control vs offensive builds.

Precisely because control-oriented builds play a much smaller number of proactive cards, they will also need to work around this by trying to maximize their hand.

As the game progresses, though, this changes. The reactive builds will have made it past early game and now will be on their preferred ground, with all of their options at their disposal, plenty of targets to neutralize and wider scope of how the round will play out, while the proactive player will have his work cut out for him trying to work around the disruption and actually deciding if he can push further, or if he needs to give up the turn.

In the end, though, deciding between when to pass, when to push further ahead, how and when to try and gain CA, how and when to disrupt/work around the disruption by equalizing your opponent's power values/scattering your own power values are decisions that are equally hard for the proactive and for the reactive play styles, and they're paramount for a consistent win rate.

Considering all of your opponent's reactive options, how and when they'll disrupt your plays and trying to play around that is as hard (sometimes harder even, but obviously sometimes easier as well) as considering your opponent's offense and how you can optimize your disruption options.

At a level where you need to consider all of that and play out in your mind how the round will progress with a couple or more plays in advance is when creative deck building better comes into play, and the key differences in your build may lead you to victory over an opponent that pilots a netdecked build which you know by heart.

Tldr: early plays are obviously more straightforward for a proactive build, and if it works out, then the game may be one of those where you kinda wanna roll your eyes and give up. But at a mid game phase and late game, it switches around, and if the reactive managed to stop the early game of the proactive one, then his plays become much more straightforward than the proactive player's, as the latter will need to carefully consider tons of options on how he'll be countered and what he can do to actually take the round, if he should go for the big swing, or give it up to go up in CA, etc. Most people don't consider this side, but if the early game goes well for the reactive player, then it can also easily turn into a "roll eyes" win as well, even though he's technically piloting the "harder to pilot" build.

Yes, yes, there are a lot of choices to be made. There is a big difference in those choices at different MMR too. Seeing the exact same deck 4 times in a row isn't rare, however. Even with various viable builds and minor wrinkles here or there most decks still operate on the same concept. Just about everything is either bombing tempo, carry-over, both or running control with late R3 tempo/point swing options. Once you've seen enough you pretty much know the entire opponent deck after, at most, a few card plays. You know their goal, your goal, the best way to approach the matchup, etc. Since very similar concepts seem to rule the meta there is very little surprise, even when the opponent didn't copy/paste a netdeck. See enough builds and figuring out how to handle the oddball, left field, never before seen masterpiece isn't exactly hard.

MS builds certainly aren't any easier than a ton of other decks. This isn't necessarily a good thing though.

 

[Skryba86]

Restlessdingo32 well, yeah, that's kinda unavoidable for now. Limited card pool, limited deck building options. The meta is diversified enough for what we have, though, and definitely looking much better balanced than earlier OB patches. You have all factions competing at a decent level, you have aggressive proactive builds, reactive control builds and mid-range hybrid builds, as well as the rare combo build, and they're all viable at a good level, IMO.

I think we're on a good track to grow now. What we need, is more cards.

 

[MooshieMooshie]

You agreed that you would need to divide the "not the most fun" part by 4, which in itself in not very accurate. Plus the intrinsic volunteer bias in any voting or survey, I am not sure how you can interpret the results meaningfully.

Right, so the better option is to divide it all by 5. Although I suppose you could argue the numbers are inflated due to people being able to have multiple favorite factions. Perhaps the better option would have been to make this a post asking people what their favorite faction was and then see if monsters sticks out. That's probably much better actually, thanks for the idea.