Because who wins round 1 doesn't matter as much as who wins round 2. That is self-evident.
Wonderboy8700;n10146062 said:
One of those gives the player going second more efficient mulligans as they know they are going second now while the player going first gets diminishing returns on the 4th mulligan. The other solution is just an elaborate way of flipping the coinflip problem and delaying it to round 3. Gold CA spies are probably not competitive.
senatormolotov, I think you misunderstood my suggestions. The first suggestion was that after the coin flip, the loser (player who is going first) get 1 (or more) additional mulligan (the player going second does not get the extra mulligan) to help balance the disadvantage of going first.
My second suggestion is a system whereby no player can ever be forced to start the first and last round. The idea is that the winner of the coin flip gets a choice, if they start the first round then they will not start the last round. In theory this allows both players to plan for their respective disadvantages and try to compensate.
My second suggestion is a system whereby no player can ever be forced to start the first and last round. The idea is that the winner of the coin flip gets a choice, if they start the first round then they will not start the last round. In theory this allows both players to plan for their respective disadvantages and try to compensate.
I just played this game:
Me Francesca vs. him Henselt
Round 1
Turn 0: He loses the coin flip and has to go first. I mulligan two Wardancers (opponent cannot drypass).
Turn 1: He plays Alzur's Double Cross for Ronvid. I play Yaevinn.
Turn 2: He plays Thaler. I play Summoning Circle.
Turn 3: He passes (if he didn't pass I would have). I Scorch and win the round on even cards.
Round 2
I drypass. He has to play something, and we go into round 3 with me up a card + him going first.
Round 3
He plays something. I play Ida applying Fog. He concedes.
CDPR, games like this are extremely demoralizing. They are completely won by spy wars + the coin flip. I didn't beat my opponent; the RNG did. There is nothing he could've done to win the game. Even the standard "get out of the coin flip free" card aka. drypass round 1 doesn't work because of the Wardancers.
When the game is over with 10+ cards left to play, there is a problem. Please fix spies and the coin flip. I consider it more urgent than adding new cards.
Me Francesca vs. him Henselt
Round 1
Turn 0: He loses the coin flip and has to go first. I mulligan two Wardancers (opponent cannot drypass).
Turn 1: He plays Alzur's Double Cross for Ronvid. I play Yaevinn.
Turn 2: He plays Thaler. I play Summoning Circle.
Turn 3: He passes (if he didn't pass I would have). I Scorch and win the round on even cards.
Round 2
I drypass. He has to play something, and we go into round 3 with me up a card + him going first.
Round 3
He plays something. I play Ida applying Fog. He concedes.
CDPR, games like this are extremely demoralizing. They are completely won by spy wars + the coin flip. I didn't beat my opponent; the RNG did. There is nothing he could've done to win the game. Even the standard "get out of the coin flip free" card aka. drypass round 1 doesn't work because of the Wardancers.
When the game is over with 10+ cards left to play, there is a problem. Please fix spies and the coin flip. I consider it more urgent than adding new cards.
Fix Spies or remove them
Spy abuse is the worst thing about this game and CDPR seem incapable of finding a solution.
Wouldn't the game just be better without spies or at least some change to their interaction so they are'nt so easily countered.
In the current meta a spy is 13 points whilst the average bronze is 11 points - that is just silly design.
Running spies has become almost mandatory now just to prevent card advantage.
What i propose:
- Straighten spies so that they have the same value as the average silver. i.e around 15-16 strength
- Make Spies Immune or give them the equivalent of gold immunity so that cant just be spammed and killed.
- Remove the card drawing ability of spies and give them another ability. Maybe some form of carry over so if you discard them they will appear on your board at the start of the next round?
- Prevent summoning circle from spawning spies.
- Remove them entirely - not ideal but it would remove spy abuse.
Until the card advantage/coin flip issue cant be fixed, spies are just adding to the problem.
Spy abuse is the worst thing about this game and CDPR seem incapable of finding a solution.
Wouldn't the game just be better without spies or at least some change to their interaction so they are'nt so easily countered.
In the current meta a spy is 13 points whilst the average bronze is 11 points - that is just silly design.
Running spies has become almost mandatory now just to prevent card advantage.
What i propose:
- Straighten spies so that they have the same value as the average silver. i.e around 15-16 strength
- Make Spies Immune or give them the equivalent of gold immunity so that cant just be spammed and killed.
- Remove the card drawing ability of spies and give them another ability. Maybe some form of carry over so if you discard them they will appear on your board at the start of the next round?
- Prevent summoning circle from spawning spies.
- Remove them entirely - not ideal but it would remove spy abuse.
Until the card advantage/coin flip issue cant be fixed, spies are just adding to the problem.
Rayataluqab;n10292792 said:
You can definitely run without spies. They're a dangerous play in round 3; 13 points can easily give away victory, and you need to dedicate a card to negating those 13 points or getting rid of them somehow, thus essentially negating the 'advantage' you got from playing them in the first place. So if someone wins round 1 and you spy turn 2, and they decide to just play it out, it's entirely possible to lose as a result, or go into round 3 on equal cards. If you play your spy turn 1 you'll likely force a pass (or their own spy), but it's extremely rare for that to result in actual card advantage. Not to mention if you don't run a spy you can run another silver that gives you game-winning power, while the opponent is donating even more power to your cause.
I don't see spies as the problem other people do. The problem was only and specifically that runestones and create turn Gwent into Create-a-Spy: the game. Now at worst there's summoning circle and decoy shenanigans afoot. Spies are still a skill play, and losing them would hurt the game, not help it.
iamthedave;n10297652 said:
You underestimate the impact of spies on the game.
First - without spies, your deck becomes susceptible to anyone running spies - the only deck which currently has the luxury of taking that risk is Consume, and only because that deck has such explosive wincon, so CA doesn't matter as much for it, and even then there are sutiation where you will regret it - like being double spied through Circle.
Second - 13 points is a miniscule number. Most decks in the current meta use bronzes which are 12 points. So in the worst case scenario the spy is -1 point or so, and most of the time it will end up as positive points even in round 3. Not to mention that things like Dun Banner, Venendal Elite and Menno allow you to bypass the negative points alltogether, and in some cases having an extra turn is more valuable than losing points. And as more interesting cards are printed, there will be less and less ways to avoid broken interactions with spies - they will continue limiting the design space for CDPR.
Third - the power of abusing the coin with the spy doesn't lie purely in getting CA. The point is - you leave your opponent no good option - they have to either go 2 down or risk losing the round on equal cards. And if you do the abuse right, you ensure that you can take the round in 1 card after you play the spy. Randomly having such great control over the game is terrible - it unbalances the game and introduces unnecessary and very impactful randomness.
Finally - spies are the best silver cards in the game. Unless your silver slots are super tight (like is the case with consume), you run the spy. There is no better option. It is the only way to give yourself a degree of protection against the coinflip abuse. It is the only way to fight back against other spies. Without spies you are vulnerable to other spies, as simple as that. And it is probably the biggest problem with spies - their only counterplay are other spies.
ThuleD;n10299702 said:
I don't underestimate the impact of spies on the game. That's why I don't want them gone. Point by point:
1. And anyone running spies is susceptible to being 2-0ed for giving someone 13 points for free. If they tech specifically because they want to summoning circle a second one, as many decks do right now, that's even worse, because they're teching for a situation that isn't going to happen. Silvers are very powerful; if you've dedicated a slot to a spy that I've dedicated to a card that helps me win, that can come back to bite you.
2. It's possible that the spies should get a base power increase to match the power increase with bronzes. I maintain that spies are still a skill play that are not guaranteed card advantage. Wardancer and Morkvarg/Olgierd are just as reliable for CA and get it in roughly the same circumstances and as often, in my opinion. That's based on my game experiences, and running plenty of decks that don't use spies, and I have been up in the low 4k MMRs with decks not using spies. I'm not arguing, however, that spies aren't powerful, only that I don't consider them a 'problem'. To expand on this point - as I think it's the most important one - do you think spies are a bigger issue now than they used to be? I don't remember there being an outcry about them until this last patch let people play SpamSpy(tm), and I can't help but wonder if this ongoing issue isn't people still burned from that (admittedly soul wrenching) experience. I think making spies immune or giving them gold immunity might be an interesting approach, so if you give your opponent those 13 points you're not getting them back no matter what.
3. How is this random? Unless I'm mistaken it allows a player to take control of the round. Isn't that the absolute opposite of randomness?
4. That's strongly debatable. They're unique and have a unique effect, I'm not sure that makes them better than, say, Sigrdrifa or Hattori, he of the 20+ point swings, or several other power silvers. I'd point out that in the upcoming Gwent Open, while most decks are running their spy, Freddybabes' Northern Realms isn't. Of course, almost every other deck is running their spy, so I'm not arguing they aren't good.
The counterplay is going for a 2-0. The problem with the argument you're proposing runs like this: You are saying 'If you do not draw your spy and I do, you cannot ever win because spies are too powerful'. But this is completely untrue. Alternately, you're suggesting that someone who gets a spy played against them is almost always going to lose unless they can play theirs back, but this is again untrue. Spies CAN give you a massive advantage, yes. But I do not see that as a problem with the game and I definitely don't see it as 'abuse'. That's mechanics. The problem is not spies, it's the coinflip itself and turn order being such an important part of the game. Hasn't it been shown that overall Gwent win percentage is horrendously lopsided depending on who goes first or second (don't remember which)?
If I can win a game where you draw your spy and I do not, is the spy really a problem? Especially if this comes up frequently?
Why do you think spies should be removed? What actual benefit would the game get from removing spies from it, given they're one of the only ways to play against turn order advantage?
Last edited:
iamthedave;n10299912 said:
1. If you lose round one, spy is one of your primary mulligan targets, exactly because it is dangerous to keep, especially if you know the opponent can overpower you in round 2. And Summoning Circle is decent even without a spy involved - copying an opponent's silver is really good in a lot of situations, so having SC in your deck is not by any means a huge investment.
2. As I said, spies are not as good as they are simply because they give you CA. Getting control of the game is the real killer here, getting CA is actually more of a secondary benefit. They can allow for coin abuse, deny carryover, or even simply extend the rounds, which in certain situations can be gamewinning by itself (though those situations usually involve Kambi, so the last point is kinda shaky here). The spy spam just made people realise how powerful the spies are. Now almost all optimised meta decks involve spies - not abusing coinflip and having no defence against abuse is just too dangerous, and most deckbuilders seem to agree on that - as you said almost all decks in Open ran spies.
3. It is random whether you draw a spy or not. It is random whether you win the coinflip or not. That is what I meant. When the stars align, you can reap those easy, cheap wins. That's a terrible thing to have in such an otherwise consistent game.
4. The uniqueness of their effect is precisely what makes them broken. The thing is, they are such a good tool for CA and game control, no other card matches them. And since their effect is unique, there is no counterplay to it, other than spies themselves. Going 2-0 is not a solution - it is always terribly risky, and as I said, most of the time spy will be mulliganed or played after losing round 1, and unless your opponent played like a complete moron, you are a card down in round 2, which on average means that you will lose the push against them, often leaving yourself a card down in round 3.
If you've read my opening post carefully, you will see, that what I suggest is resolving the coinflip by giving the first player a free pseudo-spy. The problem is, while actual spies are in the game, that will just break the game even further. And as far as I can see there is no good solution for the coinflip issue while the spies are in the game, since they allow for such heavy abuse in round 1.
And just to reiterate - I don't imply that you win the game simply by playing a spy after winning the coin. You can still lose, of course, but doing that raises your chances of winning so dramatically, I do not feel it can be justified. And that is also not the only problem with spies. As long as they are in the game any other CA designs are doomed - they will either allow for more abuse, or be completely overshadowed, just like Ciri and Ocvist currently are. Getting rid of spies will open up a lot of design space, and in my opinion will be great for the game in the long run.
Last edited:
Spy -> Summoning circle -> Igni
What is up with this meta, I thought spies were going to be fixed in the hotfix?
half the games i play my opponent is doing this combo and igni is now is almost every deck.
How can i counter this play?
Its been over a year into beta and there is still no solution to spies?
At least make summoning circle so it cant copy spies. or make spies different strength so they cant just be scorched by igni !!
What is up with this meta, I thought spies were going to be fixed in the hotfix?
half the games i play my opponent is doing this combo and igni is now is almost every deck.
How can i counter this play?
Its been over a year into beta and there is still no solution to spies?
At least make summoning circle so it cant copy spies. or make spies different strength so they cant just be scorched by igni !!
Offset their value or don't play your spy in response. Nothing stopping you from playing your spy next round, after all. Or decoy one of the two spies, that works too.
Last edited:
I'm really tired of summoning circle of spies as well. I'd be happy to have that feature removed. Never had a problem before but I can't seem to pass after a spy is played or I go down 2 cards
First of all, yes, IMO CA Spies are currently not very healthy. I'd say if you have a CA spy in your deck, you need a way to deal with the opponents CA spy (Decoy, Summoning Circle) - if you don't have that it's probably better to not run a spy at all. Of course even then you have to be patient...
Don't play gold cards or spells after the opponent plays a CA spy - otherwise your opponent might be able to play Summoning Circle. Passing after the opponent plays that Spy while in the lead is also risky because he can summoning circle it next turn. If you can't avoid two or three CA spies on your side, you have to expect Igni - in that case buffing or damaging your units can an answer but your opponent can still counter that.
Don't play gold cards or spells after the opponent plays a CA spy - otherwise your opponent might be able to play Summoning Circle. Passing after the opponent plays that Spy while in the lead is also risky because he can summoning circle it next turn. If you can't avoid two or three CA spies on your side, you have to expect Igni - in that case buffing or damaging your units can an answer but your opponent can still counter that.
It's funny, because I don't remember Summoning Circle Spy being the go-to thing until recently. Did people just discover it, or did the Spy Spam meta make people aware of how powerful it can be?
iamthedave;n10337872 said:
It's funny, because I do. I think spy spam "synergy" with Igni increased its popularity even more.
BornBoring;n10337912 said:
It was never this prevalent. I'm a day one player and I do not recall it ever been the case until the last patch where every other deck was using Summoning Circle specifically to try and double up spies. Of course that could be a console v pc difference (I'm console).
"It was never this prevalent."
Not this prevalent, but many decks used it just to counter spies.
Not this prevalent, but many decks used it just to counter spies.