[HC]: Removal rework?

[TrompeLaMort]

[HC]: Removal rework?

So, I'm sorry for the couple of threads, but since they are remaking Gwent, I feel that this is a great time to theory-craft and try to suggest solutions for Gwent's problems and deficiencies.

So my next target is... removal. This is something that rarely has been balanced in Gwent, and that triggers many people. I have had conflicting positions on this in the past, but after thinking about it for a few days, this is my understanding.

The difference between Gwent and other CCGs is that in other CCGs, units are means to an end. While in Gwent, units are the end.In other games, you win by attacking the opponent, and having units allows you to do that. But in Gwent, only having the units on board is enough to win!

And I believe that this makes removal in Gwent so much more powerful than in other games. Not only you are removing an enemy engine, but you are getting ahead in fulfilling your win condition.

Now, I obviously consider it very important to interact with what the opponent is doing, but considering the reason above, I propose some directives for removal:

1) Locks are better than removal. Why are engines useless now (without 3+ resurrection units in the deck)? Because if I play a 8 point engine, and you Viper it; not only you countered my game plan, but you leave 5 points ahead. And again: being 5 points ahead matters in Gwent in a way that is way more direct and relevant than, for example, a 2/2 Chupacabra on board. With locks, you lose the engine, but at least you keep the unit's power.

Also important: locks allow for faction neutral counter-play.Why is the only viable engine deck right now in SK? Because if winning the game for you requires having your engine online, and a lot of decks run 3+ removal units, then it is completely essential that you are able to resurrect your units, which SK is better at. If they move most removal into locks, then SK can continue being the resurrect faction, while all factions can try to counter "removal" by playing their own locks.

My suggestion: "Prison Guard (neutral bronze unit) 9 points: toggle the lock of a bronze unit." (And other cards like this.)

2) Removal should be point neutral (at least within rarity). Again, Viper Witcher is the best example. Losing your engine, which often your entire game-plan relies on (think of cursed NR), is already very bad. Now imagine losing your engine and being 5 points behind. That is literally game-losing. And this is why most engine decks are not viable by design. (SK has the advantage that not only it can resurrect its engines, but a Captain + Corsair is 4 points + engine, which means you are not that behind the 5 point removal.)

So what I propose is: Thunder cast by hand is alright, since it is 0-for-0 trade. (And as I said in my other thread, I believe it should be cast only by hand for other reasons as well.) But units that act as removal should be removed; certainly the bronze ones, but even for silver they should take a look at.

3) Removal should only move down in rarity. Some of the most interesting and fun cards in the game, like Odrin and Butterfly, are completely unplayable outside of memes right now, because the opponent can easily trade up a bronze for a silver or even a gold (besides often going up in points, see (2)). (If you think about it, the only really playable gold or silver engine right now is Wild boar, who is only playable because it has an incredible 5 armor, and most people don't run locks.) I think this shouldn't be allowed. At least bronzes, they should never remove silver and gold engines, unless going down on points. That is why my suggestion above locks only bronze units.

Now, something like Dimetrium Shackles is alright: you can lock a silver or gold, but you are losing a lot of points in the process. So it is not that feel bad to try to play gold engines. But Alzur's Thunder is not: it should affect only bronzes. Viper Witchers should be removed entirely, because of (2), but were they not removed, they should also only work on bronzes. They should playtest and consider carefully if silver locks should work on golds or not, but other removal cards like Duel should not ("Duel a non-gold unit").

By the way, with these changes we already almost have a return of gold immunity that many people were asking for.

PS: Note that I'm talking here about removal, not damage. Damaging an unit by up to 5 is alright, more than 5 (and especially 7+) already counts as removal.

I would also like to remind people that while we have been playing with removal for so long that it might feel like a core part of the game, there was originally no removal in Gwent. (Except scorch-like effects.) Reworking it now doesn't go against the idea of "homecoming", quite the opposite.

 

[BornBoring]

An interesting topic, because I think balancing it right is one of the most important aspects of the game.
Generally I'd say there shouldn't be too many units, which give you a solid body + removal* (esspecially no bronze ones, a few golds are obviously fine esspecially if synergizing with other mechanics). Engine based removal (e.g. impera enforcers, an craite longships) are way more interesting than simple removal cards like viper witcher or panther or at least cards. I guess some cards, which requiere you to have a certain board state to deal high damage are also fine (panther would actually be an example for it, but it doesn't has the type of requirement, which promotes interesting gameplay).
I think most of us want more ongoing effects instead of the current deploy heavy game. Designing removal correctly is key to achieve that.

*Some removal tech choices like alzurs thunder are okay, but you have to be carefully when it comes to tutor cards.

 

[Alch1mist]

Indeed.

I like the idea of Alzur's Thunder only working on bronzes, which would considerably make silver/gold engines stronger, as they're currently too much of a risk to play, but then Dimeritium Shackles alongside silver locks would be used to counter those engines, which is also a good buff to locks in general as they're also currently useless because removal brings more value for the same goal.

Moreover tutors for such removal/lock options should also be somewhat limited to some very specific archetype, I'd say Curse Control for Northern Realms with Cursed Mages and Spella'tael for Scoia'tael with Elven Mercenaries, other factions shouldn't tutor Spells and Items as well as those two, but instead Monster could have unique tutors for Organics which bring more support options alongside counters against row stacking, and Nilfgaard have unique tutors for Alchemy which would be about self-boosting, while Skellige wouldn't have such options as they'd have other strengths through their units.

Then units with bodies shouldn't have hard removal options, outside of tutors, but instead should have low damage similar to Dol Blathanna Archer or Tuirseach Archer, allowing you to split your damage in order to target multiple units to better set-up strong silver special cards, or break such set-up.

 

[1990BW]

Direct removal shouldn't be in the game to start with.
Second thing to add is line of defence.
From there you'll design how cards can attack/interact.
In this homcoming suggestions thread, comment #5, I've written a more detailed version:

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...ent-homecoming

If I have time I will make a more detailed version of it.

 

[Laveley]

Removal isnt a problem if you give tools to the players counter it.

Gold immunity for example was one of it... promote mechanics are just a legend now too.

Among the short lifespawn that gwent had that actually saw some tactical gameplay, a lot of anti-removals powerful archetypes/decks shined, the ones i can say on top of my head; CB radovid, promote shenanigans, SK graveyard manipulations from morkvag abuse to QG, spellatel and many more. Some of these rely a lot of removals too but were totally ineffective against others control-heavy archetypes.

Plus, control oriented decks were never weaker than they are now and the game is bleak af. The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent... and in the end the majority of the matches comes down to who won the coinflip anyways.

i agree that bronze cards shouldnt be able to remove golds though (point n 3). And that was true some time ago... remember? That time this game was actually FUN to play? The time that only golds could interact with golds? Aaaah gold ol' times those were!

its incredible how they fooled everybody saying that removing gold immunity was going to free design space when it was just the opposite. So many gold cards rendered unusable... just imagine for example a shitty card like cerys fearless with some kind of gold immunity (even the one that is on arachas queen now). thats a whole new viable archetype right there. Wake up, they just removed gold immunityt to not confuse the hearthstone casuals that dont understand that the color of a card aint merely just a showcase of its rarity.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Complelty agree with the OT.

The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent... and in the end the majority of the matches comes down to who won the coinflip anyways.

Brouver currently being the top deck has at least 3 removals, often 4 with Hattori into Ida and there is also Elven Scout into Panther.
Crach actually only runs 1.
Henselt even though being a damaging deck runs 2 removals.
And we don't have to talk about Calveit.
That are the top 4 decks popularity wise and I would call 3+ removals for the most popular deck more than enough to wreck most engine decks.

Furthermore, it is telling, how weather mages with Alzur's have a 3 times higher popularity as those without.

 

[BornBoring]

The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent...

Beside greatswords, there aren't any real engine decks at the top of the ladder. It's so easy to put enough removal in your deck to shut down most engine decks that point vomit decks are more successful. Not the only reason though, just compare Bearmaster to Raging Berserker to see reasons why there is so much point spam.....

(About gold immunity: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...-my-conclusion
But not the topic here, I don't want to discuss it again)

 

[Pruny]

I think braindead slave driver and elven scout,bearmaster,halfelfs are the bigest problem of engines. Remove that first.

 

[South8]

Regarding gold immunity, I was taking a long break from gwent in that time (played at the beginning of open beta, then dropped out) and came back only after the midwinter update, where at first it seemed weird that I can target golds, but in the end it seems only natural. Gold engines like Triss Butt would be far too strong otherwise. However, being able to remove such cards with as much effort as a fart is also just plain wrong and makes these cards almost unusable, except when played almost last when there is usually no more removals, but you lose tons of value. OP mentioned Wild Boar, which is one of my favourite SK golds, as being the only viable gold engine with its armor, so I ask myself, why not give ~5 armor to all gold engines? They are removable, but not in a single step. In my opinion, that would be the simplest solution and a compromise between gold immunity and removal. The only counter argument would be the interaction between NR armor archetype (Vincent), but would that really be such a bad thing (2 extra points for Vincent)? Especially since NR are currently way behind everything else.

Regarding general removal, I totally agree that it should not be a positive play, i.e. should not be able to be done with bodies (at least for bronzes). Tutors for Alzur's thunder and Vipers are just too strong as explained in the OP. I believe that damaging with a bronze body should be limited to around 5 (wyvern, tuirseach hunter) and removal would still be possible, just harder with a 2 card setup with possible reaction from the owner of the target. That would also create a bit larger gap between golds and bronzes (in the current meta golds are not really always visibly better, which is a shame).

And weather mages with Thunder? I don't know about those... Maybe make them doomed, so they cannot be replayed? Or make all/none of these have Thunder for consistency between factions.. Or maybe the best thing altogether would be to just nerf the Thunder. Maybe we could have 2 versions - Alzur's Thunder - played from hand: deal 9 damage; Alzur's Lightning - spawned: deal 7?

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Regarding gold immunity, I was taking a long break from gwent in that time (played at the beginning of open beta, then dropped out) and came back only after the midwinter update, where at first it seemed weird that I can target golds, but in the end it seems only natural. Gold engines like Triss Butt would be far too strong otherwise. However, being able to remove such cards with as much effort as a fart is also just plain wrong and makes these cards almost unusable, except when played almost last when there is usually no more removals, but you lose tons of value. OP mentioned Wild Boar, which is one of my favourite SK golds, as being the only viable gold engine with its armor, so I ask myself, why not give ~5 armor to all gold engines?

I want to clarify that although gold immunity is something that should be discussed, I didn't propose the return with gold immunity. What I proposed is that bronze and silver removal (that is, 6/7+ damage) should be limited to target only lower rarities. Considering that I also proposed to actually rework most of the current removal (with bodies), that would involve changing just a few cards, most notably Alzur's Thunder. (You would still be able to kill a Triss with two hunters, if the opponent didn't do anything to prevent it.)

I share the concern that in this case some golds could become too powerful: I think that probably silver locks should be able to lock golds (and lose some power). Then the opponent at least would have the chance to counter with their own lock. And we could potentially have more gold removal, like assassinate. (Which today is useless outside of Arena, since Thunder already kills anything you might want to kill.)

 

[Udalryk]

Bronze = B, Silver = S, Gold = G, Removal = R.

What would work is having SR and BR only damage G units by half. BR can round damage down, SR up.
BR would damage B and S units normally. Alternatively, after doing half damage to a G unit (a spell like Scorch), the rest of the damage would be dealt to an adjacent unit (if there is one).

There are other ways to make spells more dependent on other things, but it's too long for this post.

Probably the best way to deal with Locks (and Weather), is having them turn based, expiring after X turns. A lock on a G unit would expire one turn earlier than on S or B, for example. Maybe Locks should then be not possible to unlock, or unlock with a damage penalty. Similar with Weather, being turn based, with a small Deathwish effect (only when forcefully removed).

 

[Laveley]

Complelty agree with the OT.


Brouver currently being the top deck has at least 3 removals, often 4 with Hattori into Ida and there is also Elven Scout into Panther.
Crach actually only runs 1.
Henselt even though being a damaging deck runs 2 removals.
And we don't have to talk about Calveit.
That are the top 4 decks popularity wise and I would call 3+ removals for the most popular deck more than enough to wreck most engine decks.

Furthermore, it is telling, how weather mages with Alzur's have a 3 times higher popularity as those without.

So, basically you just proved my point. Thank you.

4 removals on a 25 card decks fits exactly on my description of "only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent" and is as far as control based deck as the moon is from the earth.

Sweet summer child never saw a truly control deck.

The only sorta control deck that i've seem lately is the eithne one. And even this one is less removal heavy than what this game had seem on the past, with decks with just 5 or 6 units and the rest of the cards just removal tools.

Beside greatswords, there aren't any real engine decks at the top of the ladder.

Did i said engine? No i didnt. I said "The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent"

Which the guy above made the favor of proving, showing that all the top decks run at max 4 removals.

 

[Laveley]

I want to clarify that although gold immunity is something that should be discussed, I didn't propose the return with gold immunity. What I proposed is that bronze and silver removal (that is, 6/7+ damage) should be limited to target only lower rarities. Considering that I also proposed to actually rework most of the current removal (with bodies), that would involve changing just a few cards, most notably Alzur's Thunder. (You would still be able to kill a Triss with two hunters, if the opponent didn't do anything to prevent it.)

I share the concern that in this case some golds could become too powerful: I think that probably silver locks should be able to lock golds (and lose some power). Then the opponent at least would have the chance to counter with their own lock. And we could potentially have more gold removal, like assassinate. (Which today is useless outside of Arena, since Thunder already kills anything you might want to kill.)

What you mentioned is just exactly how gold immunity worked some time on CB; bronze and silvers cant touch gold cards with the exception of locks.

 

[BornBoring]

Did i said engine? No i didnt. I said "The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent"

If there are no engines.....What should I remove then? Totally not worth putting too much removal in your deck if you mainly face point spam units like bearmaster and half elf hunter.

Beside some point spam units still being overstated, there is so much effortless removal in the game that nearly all engine based decks are unviable.
Repeating myself: Because engine decks are unviable you don't need control decks and you won't see many.

The way removal is implemented in the game right now is hurting the game. OP describes some of the problems pretty good.

 

[Laveley]

If there are no engines.....What should I remove then? Totally not worth putting too much removal in your deck if you mainly face point spam units like bearmaster and half elf hunter.

So, you agree with my statement of "The top 3 or 4 decks that i'm aware of arent control based and use only as much removal as necessary to partially disrupt the main point vomit mechanic of the opponent." after all. This is important because i made this statement to further emphasize the main argument that i did on my first commentary that you and the other guy that disagreed to me (to just went on and prove what i said to be right) totally and utterly ignored to begin with.

Beside some point spam units still being overstated, there is so much effortless removal in the game that nearly all engine based decks are unviable. Repeating myself: Because engine decks are unviable you don't need control decks and you won't see many. The way removal is implemented in the game right now is hurting the game. OP describes some of the problems pretty good.

Right, than again, repeating myself because you just completely ignored it; removal aint a problem if you give players counters to it.

i could disagree that the only viable engine decks right now are crach, axeman and consume are engines based too but whatever, thats not the point, if you feel engines arent being played now because its so easily removed, that what about giving mechanics so it isnt as easily removed?

Do you remember the axeman meta? That was one of the most hated metas this game has ever seen. Back that time, game was shallow on removals and thus the most powerful engine deck totally dominated.

So its all about balancing the removal vs counter removal.

removal aint something inherently wrong for gwent or a totally alien and problematic mechanic as some people are stating here.

The thing you have to consider is that removal dont come from thin air. Its cost at least a card. it cost resources. statements like this;

Not only you are removing an enemy engine, but you are getting ahead in fulfilling your win condition.

are totally flawed because they totally disconsider the price the player that used the removal is paying. you are removing a card from you opponent but you are paying the price of a card of your own. the only advantage here is that the player with the removal can choose which trade he can do most of the times. yeah removing a card from your opponent is nice, but than what? you still need to put points on the board on your own to win the match and those points can be target of removal as well. if removal is too strong, than give more anti-removal mechanics for the players, if its too weak, than give it more power.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

What you mentioned is just exactly how gold immunity worked some time on CB; bronze and silvers cant touch gold cards with the exception of locks.

From inside your own quote of my post:

(...) that would involve changing just a few cards, most notably Alzur's Thunder. (You would still be able to kill a Triss with two hunters, if the opponent didn't do anything to prevent it.)

It has been over an year since I played CB, but I don't remember it being like that. And note that in no moment whatsoever I said gold cards should be immune to weather, to scorch, Igni, all the stuff they were immune to in CB.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

The thing you have to consider is that removal dont come from thin air. Its cost at least a card. it cost resources. statements like this;

{MY QUOTE}

are totally flawed because they totally disconsider the price the player that used the removal is paying. you are removing a card from you opponent but you are paying the price of a card of your own. the only advantage here is that the player with the removal can choose which trade he can do most of the times. yeah removing a card from your opponent is nice, but than what? you still need to put points on the board on your own to win the match and those points can be target of removal as well. if removal is too strong, than give more anti-removal mechanics for the players, if its too weak, than give it more power.

I hoped I was clear enough in my original point. I have nothing against 1-for-1 trades. My problems are with 1-for-1 trades that leave you ahead (AKA not 1-for-1 trades).

"You still need to put points on the board on your own to win the match". Exactly! The problem with things like Viper Witchers, or even Tormented Sorcerers and Panthers, is that they are not 1-for-1 removal; you are removing an engine and you are putting points on the board to win the match.

Similarly, you can't really call a bronze trading for a silver (or even a gold) 1-for-1. You can kill a mythic rare with a common spell in MTG, but a mythic rare (except $$) costs no extra resources than a common. While a gold is extremely costly in Gwent! Trading down your gold to a bronze is game losing, because now you are playing 3 golds against 4.

 

[Laveley]

From inside your own quote of my post:



It has been over an year since I played CB, but I don't remember it being like that. And note that in no moment whatsoever I said gold cards should be immune to weather, to scorch, Igni, all the stuff they were immune to in CB.

On CB golds werent immune to igni iirc. yes, they were immune to weather, but than again, weather was different on CB. They could be locked and "demotable" by cards like seargent and dbomb also. As for the hunters being able to touch them, than you arent against bronze removal on gold cards, you are against *some* removal on gold cards, which makes everything spaghetti from a gameplay perspective. Or you make the mechanic work symmetrically or you dont make the mechanic at all ihmo.

I hoped I was clear enough in my original point. I have nothing against 1-for-1 trades. My problems are with 1-for-1 trades that leave you ahead (AKA not 1-for-1 trades).

Than you should quit this game because its all about making trades that leaves you ahead. Even a simple play as i play a 6 body on the board and you play a 11 its a trade that leaved you ahead. Again, the only difference about removal is that the player using the removal can cherry pick which trade he is doing. Sometimes it pay off if the card removed has the potential to amass a lot of points, sometimes it doesnt because remove cards usually worth less base points than non-removable cards of the same category.

"You still need to put points on the board on your own to win the match". Exactly! The problem with things like Viper Witchers, or even Tormented Sorcerers and Panthers, is that they are not 1-for-1 removal; you are removing an engine and you are putting points on the board to win the match.

Viper witchers are a problem just because they have too much value for a bronze card; 15 point value remove bronze is a little bit too much, yes. But the removal mechanic isnt absolutely the problem here. The other mentioned cards are just fine.

Similarly, you can't really call a bronze trading for a silver (or even a gold) 1-for-1

Yes. as i already said since my first comment here, for that i agree. gold immunity ftw (at least from bronzes, even if they werent immune to silvers it wouldnt be as bad).

 

[WildFeo]

Viper witchers are a problem just because they have too much value for a bronze card; 15 point value remove bronze is a little bit too much, yes. But the removal mechanic isnt absolutely the problem here. The other mentioned cards are just fine.
.

I think the problem is that most of the engines are weak and the only profitable strategy is to play "here and now" cards, which provide straight value with no risk.
I mean, come on, look at the most cards with delayed value, they are just pathetic. Most of them can be removed by plain Alzur Thunder with a positive value.
Every time I try building some sort of competitive deck by including engine cards I end up frustrated cuzz of another Bronze DD/Thunder/Some random created bullshit Panthera/etc and get back to my cancer tier1 deck.

 

[Laveley]

I think the problem is that most of the engines are weak

So, thats what i'm saying; just give players forms of better avoid/counter control and removal in general. The best engine based decks around are precisely the ones that can do it more effectively; skellige ones that can just rez their engines again and again.

The problem isnt in removal mechanics like is being said on this thread. The problem is the balance between removal and counter removal. And believe me, you wouldnt want a meta with powerful engines going rampart because theres little to no form of effective removal going around.