Beat me to it.
Gwent is dying, you can accept the facts or go down with the ship, I don't care.
I had fun with the game while it lasted, it was a great ccg, espescially from a f2p-players perspective but let's be honest, Gwent had only ever 2 selling points: it was set in the Witcher universe and it wasn't that much of an rng-fiesta unlike other ccgs. Now it's only a little game for hardcore Witcher fanboys.
That's not true at all. You've got a very fatalistic attitude toward the mechanics in this game. I've seen this attitude on so many card game forums. It happened with Duelyst, for example, which, by the way was always more consistent than GWENT. Every single turn you get to mulligan... MULTIPLE TIMES if you want, in addition to drawing more cards... MULTIPLE times if you're able.
Duelyst was flawed in such a way where Songhai would COMMONLY explode the enemy general from full health down to nothing on a single turn off of 3-4 card combos. And the try hard community loved it because of their willingness to exploit those combos against people who didn't enjoy playing that way. For the longest time Ventruivian just dominated everything, and they were fine with that because whenever the new ladder season came around they'd climb instantly up to S-Rank by spamming Vetruvian.
So when Duelyst devs actually FIXED the broken ass mechanics there was a mass exodus from all the players who thought that broken mechanics were good, only because the broken mechanics allowed them to go on 50 game winning streaks as they climbed up the ladder. Now, their winning percentage would only give them 10 game streaks instead, so they whined that the skill cap in teh game had been dropped substantially. But it hadn't. The skill cap had been INCREASED because the game became better balanced.
It's similir with this game. Homecoming adds so much nuance to what is possible at the deck building phase of the game. It does this by adding a risk of inconsistency when you overspecialize your deck in order to do one particular thing. THis is an INCREASE of skill cap. Not a roadblock to it. In GWENT today you are better off harboring multiple concepts and win conditions in any deck taht you make. And it's brilliant.
I think you might be taking the ideal scenario a bit too far here.
You're assuming the most powerful cards require the most specialization or setup, thus lead to the least consistency. This is not true. The most powerful and desirable cards are the way they are because they can far exceed their cost or offer some other benefit unavailable to "normal" cards. A few examples would be ridiculously high removal value, tempo and/or deck thinning. In other words, they're more efficient and/or superior to everything else.
It's also important to note many of these powerful cards cannot be dealt with when used as a finisher with last say. There are many cases where a R1 loss is close to a guaranteed game loss. Either because of the match-up or the card/card combo the other deck runs as a finisher. Throw in the various issues surrounding coin flip and it compounds the problem.
In terms of the provision system... Meh.... It's zero sum. It's highly restrictive because of it. The name of the game is to plop the strongest available cards into a deck, find the right balance of thinning/tutor tools so you can find them and drop in filler for the remainder. The filler either fits the deck concept/concepts or exists so you can remain below the provision limit.
Basically, there are busted mechanics in Gwent. Everyone flocks to the busted mechanics. This has been true of Gwent since CB. The difference between some of the older versions back in beta and HC is the odds of ending up completely screwed due to events completely outside the control of the player are higher.
Well I'm not asserting that the game has perfect card balance. I'm just saying that the MECHANICS create a space where deck building can become more diverse than in games like MTG that don't have a provision system and a 1x/2x card limit. I mean think about it. Instead of Banning cards. Wizards of the Coast could just increase the provision cost instead. Then depending on format, you can say, let's play with a 100 provision limit or a 200, or a 300. Whatever quality of cards you want to have in your format you can just do that. Some cards could even have a 1000 provision cost so that you can say let's have a tourney with 4300 provision limit - assuming most players would put 4 1,000 provision cards in such a deck while the rest of their deck would comprise the 300 provision limit. The provision system is BRILLIANT!! It fixes SO MANY CARD GAMES OUT THERE. You have to CDPR time to take full advantage of this insight they've had on card game mechanics.
I mean HS, instead of stupid Wild and Standard, you could just increase the provision cost of all the WILD or OP cards so that people can still use them, but they can't fill their deck up with them. I mean, let's say you want to keep playing Ragnoros, but in order to do that you have to lower the provision cost of the rest of your deck, so you might take out your board clears which should also have a higher provision cost jsut to fit rag into your deck. I mean so you can have your OP double Ragnoros mage, but it will cost you board clears. I would be fine with that. This provision system could be used to balance every single card game out there.
Respect to CDPR - and the playerbase here needs to recognize how great this system is.
Last edited:
Do you honestly believe what you say?
The provision system is a desperate attemt at introducing an additional balancing factor into the game. Gwent, by its design, needs those crutches, while other ccgs already have other "mechanics", as you call them, to balance out cards. The idea of provisions may sound great on paper, but in reality all it does is making deck bulding bland and restrictive.
Maybe it's not the playerbase that need to recognize something - it's you.
People, not just you, keep pointing out that the provision system is making deck building more restrictive. Regardless of whether or not that's true, the provision system was never meant to fix that. Deck building in beta was already fine. The problem was balancing individual cards. Beta only had three tiers: bronze, silver and gold. With the provision system, there are as many tiers are there are numbers. This makes balancing easier, which also allows for expansions to be introduced without getting power creep.
As for the deck building becoming more restrictive, that's more psychological because everyone wants to put in the most expensive cards, resulting in having to include junk cards to offset the numbers. But that's a discussion for another time.
I would replace 'desperation' with 'inspired' (as necessity is the mother of invention) and I would also replace 'crutches' with 'bulwarks'. There. Fixed.
Yes provision system is genius. And after I first noticed it, I had to face palm, because it was one of those moments of "Why didn't I think of that?" It fixes so many card games that have thrown in the towel balance wise. That are rotating sets in and out. All you have to do is disfavor old sets or overpowered cards with higher provision costs. Then if you want a 'wilder' format, just increase the player max provision allowance. it's so fucking simple after it's been shown to you.
Now, I'm not saying everything is perfect with GWENT. I think the main problem with the game is a lack of EXPLOSIVE finishes. Most matches kind of end with one player squeaking past another or another player just losing his favorite piece and just kind of rapidly deflating into a loss. There needs to be a focus on creating gameplay that ends in a climax.
I also think your issues with deck building or consistency are primarily just the fact that this is the basic set. And a handful of the cards are overly influential on the outcome of matches while a larger handful seem to have been overlooked in the low provision bronze area. I also think that some cards like that, I forget its name the Skellige pirate card that buffs your ships by 1 and deals 1 point of random damage to enemies when you play a pirate. That card is such an obvious target for removal or lock and it takes so long for it to generate its value. You end up having to play it early which means your opponent will have the most options for dealing with it. Also you are delaying your ships which generally do better when you play them early...
My point is mechanically, sometimes it might make sense for some of these cards to have different kinds of effects that maybe linger even after they've been removed. Maybe let this pirate guy's "aura" persist on the board for the next 3 turns or something. Because he's so easy to deal with.
And stuff like that. But that's just general card balance and mechanics. The provision system is just incredible.
I don't only mean restrictive in the sense of "I can't put in all the most expensive cards", it's also restrictive in the sense of "I have to put in as few cards as possible". I miss good old 40 card Foltest
Not this PR again, balance was not hard in beta all they had to do was small nerfs to tier1 deck, and the powercreep apeared after they inflated broze value near gold value, like 15point vipers when philipa was 16, or 12point halfelf when geralt was 15
I agree with @_Kili_ that the provision system sounds good but only on paper. I mean, the idea is good but implementation isn't. The provision system can balance the cards one by one but it can't balance the card combos anyway.
And how is it right that some bronzes are more expensive than golds?
And how is it right that some bronzes are more expensive than golds?
I admire your optimism. Yes, the provision system provides more design space. It's meaningless if it's not leveraged fully or properly. I've yet to see either of these. What I have seen is using it as a means to adjust values a point or two here or there in the positive or negative direction. In the cases where it's gone beyond this it's taken cards people were complaining about and radically inflated the cost so they became difficult to fit in a deck.
I'd love to think this genius system was added to do what you claim. I still can't help but think it's merely an additional balance avenue there to provide an easy way to adjust cards. It doesn't matter if it works. It doesn't matter if the perceived problem area is corrected. Just as long as it appears like something was done about it. See where I'm going here?
Well this is how I'm thinking about the provision system. Right now it goes from 4-15. Maybe it should go from 1-20 or from 0-100. Right now it's a pretty new concept as far as I'm aware and you've got to give CDPR the license to figure it out because as I see it, depending on how they handle the provision concept, the game's current method of mulligan and card draw could and probably should end up being revised at some point. Due to the fact that the value of a card will alter drastically depending on how provisions will ultimately be budgeted.
Right now I think the numbers are either too tight or too loose - I mean the range is either too wide or too narrow. If you have a more narrow range, then the power of all cards should be closer. If the range is wider, then the power of all cards need to be farther apart. In a situation with a wider ranger, you'd have to accomodate for the fact that some cards will be much worse than others by allowing those low provision cards to basically act as cantrips. So the game would have more card draw and faster gameplay. You'd probably have to increase max deck size too.
On the other hand, if you want a more narrow range - with lower max provision cap, then you're going to reduce the snowballing of powerful cards while also reducing the amount of removal and locks in teh game so that coming up with strategies doesn't feel pointless in the face of removal and locks.
I'm in favor of the wider range - and THEREFORE LARGER MAX PROVISION CAP. I'm in favor of larger decks and more cantrips. Because I like the idea of having Sihil cost 50 provision, while the lowliest gold character card costs like 12. I like that. So Sihil can remain strong, and even receive complimentary cards that are also strong. But that Sihil user will have to think hard about his cantrips and what his deck is going to be able to do if Sihil isn't on the board or if Sihil outright fails.
Right now the provision system is like Base Goku. if CDPR makes the right conditions for him he just might end up going SS3SSGUIBGR or whatever he's up to at this point
Right now I think the numbers are either too tight or too loose - I mean the range is either too wide or too narrow. If you have a more narrow range, then the power of all cards should be closer. If the range is wider, then the power of all cards need to be farther apart. In a situation with a wider ranger, you'd have to accomodate for the fact that some cards will be much worse than others by allowing those low provision cards to basically act as cantrips. So the game would have more card draw and faster gameplay. You'd probably have to increase max deck size too.
On the other hand, if you want a more narrow range - with lower max provision cap, then you're going to reduce the snowballing of powerful cards while also reducing the amount of removal and locks in teh game so that coming up with strategies doesn't feel pointless in the face of removal and locks.
I'm in favor of the wider range - and THEREFORE LARGER MAX PROVISION CAP. I'm in favor of larger decks and more cantrips. Because I like the idea of having Sihil cost 50 provision, while the lowliest gold character card costs like 12. I like that. So Sihil can remain strong, and even receive complimentary cards that are also strong. But that Sihil user will have to think hard about his cantrips and what his deck is going to be able to do if Sihil isn't on the board or if Sihil outright fails.
Right now the provision system is like Base Goku. if CDPR makes the right conditions for him he just might end up going SS3SSGUIBGR or whatever he's up to at this point
Having 0 to 15 provisions gives you a 6.7% increase in power for every point, if you assume a linear progression. In theory, this means that every card has a max power shift of 3.35% (half the gap), if everything is balanced perfectly. This percentage is already so small, there is no real point in increasing the number of provision "levels". Anyhow, I am starting to have some doubts about the seriousness of your suggestion.
They had 2 years of beta to figure it out. Over that time there were multiple over-hauls. All supposedly designed to "fix" the game. Then we got the HC letter, which... I won't get into. Finally we end up with HC and a full release. Full release meaning another over-haul. Forgive me if I do not give the CDPR Gwent developers much wiggle room in the figure it out department.
Next we come to the artifact hotfix. What did that do? Jacked up the cost on artifacts. It almost appears as if artifacts were seeing a lot of play, players were complaining about them so someone pulled a card usage stat sheet and checked off nerf boxes next to artifact cards. Insert the hotfix and artifact provision costs were inflated. It sort of kind of worked for a while because people were apprehensive about paying the new and improved cost of artifacts. A bit of time rolls by and those builds were tweaked and adjusted. Artifact/spell spam abuse decks still exist. They're not very good but they do exist.
Next comes the December patch. Once again, it appears someone pulled up a usage sheet and saw Eithne all over the place. Players were complaining about Eithne. The solution? Nerf Eithne into oblivion and virtually every single card it was using. The result? Everyone stopped playing it. In other words, an overreaction destroyed the concept. Furthermore, other ST builds got to soak up collateral damage because a single deck concept was oppressive.
Know what the other result of the December patch was? All the point-slam decks came roaring out of the shadows because half the cards used to stop them and the major builds designed to beat them got shit on. Now you basically have to run resets to handle them. Even then you need to draw them. Even then you might still lose if you don't get last say.
Again, great in theory. In practice, not so much. I'd like to believe there will be improvements down the line. Unfortunately, I've seen the hamster wheel spin enough times, the promises and the disappointment to find it difficult.
Yes, along with Eithnè, they just ruined almost all Elves. The most, most of the ST cards can achieve is Provision-1 (or row stack and get more value.. Trouviel, Dennis, that bronze dwarf who boosts himself for all other dwarves in another row, etc).
While Skald and Morgvag would be in 100% of the SK decks, they will always be given a blind-eye by CDPR. Why the fk Skald is just 5 provision when he gives thinning/mulligan giving 4 points on the table is beyond any logical reasoning (If a similar card was with ST, he would have either 3 point body or 6 provisions minimum). CDPR always has a blind-eye towards broken SK cards.
There ar only 4-15 Provisions what makes it so restrictive. I dont have to take one bad card for a good one, i have to take 2 bad cards for one good
Wouldn't it be reasonable to explain WHY you are having doubts of my seriousness? I mean you shouldn't just start questioning people's sincerity as a moderator without at least explaining what your reasons are.
Anyway, I believe there is a problem with what you said about 6.7% or whatever, because you have to take into account the various synergies that go along with a card as well!! What if you have two identical cards, one for Skellige and the other for SC. The card says, "If you have 3 Skellige faction cards on the field, you win the game". If that card was in SC it would have a provision costs of 0. If it was in Skellige it would have a provision cost of 1000. But it's the same card. That is a ridiculously absurd example that I'm using to just show that the exact same text is going to mean very different things depeneding on how it synergizes with other cards throughout the game's various situations.
So I'm saying Geralt: Yrden may be an 11 out of 15 in 40% of decks. But in 60% decks it may be a 15 out of 15. As opposed to every other 11 out of 15 which is an 11 out of 15 100% of the time. Again, another absurd example, not meant to throw you off, but the point is to show that there may be some synergy with Yrden that sometimes places its power level much higher than the other 11 provision cards are usually able to go.
This is why it could be useful for the provision cost to be able to reflect things such as that. How situational is Yrden? How much can it be exploited? A perfectly exploited Yrden might be drastically more powerful than its usual effectiviness level in the hands of the average player. I just think that if the provision costs numbers are too compact it becomes difficult to reflect nuances such as those.
Basically, I think ur 6.7% theory of incrimental power increases between the provision costs, falls apart across various actual gameplay situations. Like I said before, if I implemented provisions into MTG. I would give all the banned and OP cards a provision costs of 1000+. That way you could introduce formats where the deck limit was set to 500. And so all those 1000 provision cards would be unplayable. Or you could have a format of 2500 where TWO of those banned/OP cards could be used and so on. It's about context. It's not about cold hard math. What if clever use of provision costs could actually make it OKAY for CDPR to print blantantly overpowered cards? They would just have really high provision costs to make them reasonable. No card game has an allowance for INTENDED imba. But with provisions you could actually do that. Have an open mind. This is uncharted territory as far as I know.
I mean let's say they put an Exodia or something i this game. But each piece of Exodia had a provision cost of 25? Of course the game in its current state would have to have mulligan rules adjusted for something like that but THEORETICALLY. You could have very strong concepts introduced that are balanced specifically by provision costs. IT's a freedom that Hearthstone devs and MTG devs DO NOT HAVE. And you guys should be excited that CDPR came up with this concept for GWENT. I mean we could have a Dr. BOOM. We could have a mysterious challenger. Just give make them cost 35 provisions each!!
Also, considering how new the system is, I don't get how your expectations for 0-15 could have possibly solidified for any logical reason at this point.
Last edited: