ZERO strategy - what is wrong with HC76

+
It should be added that most people talking about strategy and such are talking about competitive stuff.
Sure, you can build a lot of decks with a lot of fun little interactions, but if those decks aren't good enough in a competitive environment, the entire point is moot.
For example, in beta I had this fun little Kaedweni Revenant Swarm deck. It was a blast to play, had a lot of synergies (Henselt-Revenant-Siege Support-Flails-etc.) but it had a winratio of about 40%, so the deck was pretty much irrelevant to any discussion about strategy in Gwent, it couldn't win consistently and it certainly couldn't beat the meta (apart from consume Nekkers).
A good example for how one dimensional strategy in Gwent is, are the tournaments: how often did the person win, that targeted a specific deck he knew his opponents were running? I think last open Freddybabes demonstrated this perfectly, iirc he always won 3-2 making 4 decks that could beat the 1 deck every other guy was running and basically forfeiting to the other 2 decks.

I agree that fun decks with alot of niche synergies are not necessarily competitive, but the person I quoted said in his first sentence that he is just an average player and he did not see anything fun in when he opened the deckbuilder. I cannot talk about the competitive side of the game too much since I never reached the pro ladder or anything like that, but I just cannot stomach all the thoughtless "everything is add points or remove points" and "there are no fun synergies" pseudo-arguments. Personally I am having more fun in the Gwent Homecoming than in Gwent post Midwinter (only saying midwinter because I honestly do not remember the level of enjoyment I got from the game before that). However, I do acknowledge that there are problems that need to be solved but in my opinion the Homecoming foundation is stronger than the pre-Homecoming one.
 
At the start of Homcing i had a few ideas for decks. The first one worked well, the second not so well (Monster-queenspider-consume; Monster-Deathwish). All other ideas i had after these two one died cause by the lack of (good) supporting cards for that archetyp. I must addmit, i mostly play themed decks as well, which wasnt possible either. Inever was "good" in Gwent, and i dont wanted to be. But i had fun with my decks, which were born be ideas for the faction.
This part totally died with homecoming for me, because you have to mix you decks, either with other "archetypes" oder other themes.
 
I do acknowledge that there are problems that need to be solved but in my opinion the Homecoming foundation is stronger than the pre-Homecoming one.

Most of the cards being played in the current meta are faction specific.

What I dont undestand is people making the argument of point spam. Yes, the game plan is revolving around having more points than your opponent, and there are different, I.e faction specific ways to achieve just that.

Some of the archetypes that improved since beta is the deathwish. Now you have a larger variety of bronze units in the deck, while the past version was centered around primodial d'ao.
 
I'm not an expert on card games. I never analyzed strategies in depth and I'm just an average player.

All I know is, I go into the deck builder and there's nothing fun. Synergies are lacking. It's spam points and spam stuff that damages stuff.

The deckbuilding comes down to selecting good golds and then just filling the rest of the deck with whatever. I really think the Gold/Silver/Bronze system was much better, as well as 3 bronzes.

Hmmm, before HC it wasn't like that? There was no point spam? The was no removal? As far as I remember point spam was much worse before, the big numbers you could achieve in beta Gwent are not possible here. Did we just forgot the point spam of SK Greatsword? SK Veterans? Monsters consume? or maybe we just forgot about control/removal of NG Viper Witchers? NR machines? SK machines? ST swordmasters?

The only significant difference that made those decks possible are tutors, which lead to thinning, and this to more consistency. It's not the 2 rows, it's not the 3 bronzes, the main issue are tutors.

And then, we have the argument of HC having more RNG, yet we forgot that before most of the tutors were also RNG based, or we forgot about Spies, Reconnaissance, Reinforcement, Tormented Mage, Vicovaro Novice, Elven Mercenary, Stannis, Triss Merigold, etc, etc??

So basically the sense of more synergies (or more complex archetypes) comes from tutors which were mostly NRG based. And for me one card calling randomly another is not a synergy at all, it's just a way to thin the deck, but not a synergy.

The first step towards consistency in HC is bringing back blacklisting. Then we can maybe talk about reintroducing tutors, but it can't be the same way as before, you can't just add bodies as tutors with the low value cards we have atm.
 
Please, do not be more of a nuisance than necessary, @kAiSeR007. Just watch last POTM.

People really only see what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear. It's like talking to a f'g brick wall.

What's your point exactly? Just because a 1 in a 1000 Cahir play that goes to 140 points it makes it a valid argument? You are seriously saying that HC has more point spam than beta Gwent? If yes, I don't know what game you were playing the last years. You people stopped playing the game and yet think you have an accurate opinion of what's going on, because a POTM? What a poor argument, really.

Do you even have anything to say to what I posted or I have to watch some other video?
 
Last edited:
Some of the archetypes that improved since beta is the deathwish. Now you have a larger variety of bronze units in the deck, while the past version was centered around primodial d'ao.
A deck centered around a card isnt the problem here. While its true, that deathwish evolved (for me the only evolving Archetype), the higher variety of bronze in the deck isnt a value for itself. The deck itself plays very strange for me, because you dont gain as much profit and tempo as you got out of a d'ao. The average turn is a 8-play, if you have your setup. If not, its a 3-4 play. you are now much more focused of having your deathwish cards than before with d'ao center, because you could play more around it in the past. So even with a higher variet of cards you have less options for a solid/good play. And thats the problem.
 
A deck centered around a card isnt the problem here. While its true, that deathwish evolved (for me the only evolving Archetype), the higher variety of bronze in the deck isnt a value for itself. The deck itself plays very strange for me, because you dont gain as much profit and tempo as you got out of a d'ao. The average turn is a 8-play, if you have your setup. If not, its a 3-4 play. you are now much more focused of having your deathwish cards than before with d'ao center, because you could play more around it in the past. So even with a higher variet of cards you have less options for a solid/good play. And thats the problem.

The average turn being an 8 play is in my opinion really good, maybe too good as I don't seem to be getting those numbers. Nevertheless, being centered on your deathwish cards is pretty much the point of a deathwish deck right? The way I see it, you have like 5-6 unique bronzes with deathwish (if you choose to play Maerolorn and Fiend that still center on deathwish, otherwise you can have more deathwish bronzes). Afterwards, you have Manticore, Miruna, Werecat, which also have deathwishes. With this you get 5*2+3=13 pure deathwish units out of 25. However, you also have Maerolorn, which triggers deathwishes, and other such cards that really push the complexity of the deck, like Caranthir and Ge'els and Whispering Hillock and Ritual Sacrifice and stuff like Renew and Kayran, that still benefit Deathwish. This pushes it to at least 18 units focused on Deathwish.

And regarding the choices, I feel that this particular deck has a lot of them, since golds like Caranthir and Whispering Hillock offer a lot of options. You could Caranthir Kayran on round 1 to get the burst needed to win and still have the original card later. You could Caranthir Miruna or Manticore to control the opponents' board to get rid of engines. You could Whispering Hillock anything to trigger its deathwish and play it again, like Ge'els if he is locked or Manticore or Caranthir of whatever. You could then Renew the same card or another one if it was used in a previous round. Plus you can get nice bronze-focused plays like Ancient Foglet into Predatory Dive or Rotfiend with Unseen Elder or Maerolorn to control the board early (I focus on these since my deck is control consume and I know these best)

I feel that with this particular deck, you have a lot more options that you did in old Gwent. And concerning other decks, I believe that you have more possible strategies to win a round and a game. With the two archetypes in one deck custom, you basically can have 2 complex win conditions. For example, I have a Nilfgaard deck that centers on Vattier de Rideaux and the lock archetype to steal high powered units. I can play Vattier then Emhyr something( like alba cavalry) then Letho Kingslayer on Vattier to have two Vattiers which late game usually guarantees that at least one goes off (since opponents usually use removal on stuff like Skellen). However, if the cards are not right or the opponent plays something with a lot of small cards or a ton of removal, I also have the Soldiers achetype win condition. This involves Slave Infantry with Vreemde. The main benefit of this deck is the combination between the two archetypes. As Magna Cavalries are soldiers, I can replay their ability with Vrygheff as I can with Slave Infantry. Also, since they are soldies I can play stuff like Alba Spearman to control the melee row. The deck works exceptionally well with Ihuarraquax, since it pulls Vattier and then Skellen. For this I also add Tibor Eggebracht, which means that if I play my cards and mulligans right, I can have up to 3 win conditions (Vattier and Letho, Slave Infantry and Vreemde, Ihuarraquax and Tibor). The first is the most common one, but the second can win the first round or even the third with a huge setup involving Vrygheff and Emhyr, whereas the third can win super short rounds, which can be really nice if I decide that milking my opponent round 2 is better or the opponent wants me to go one card down in round 3 and uses a lot of points into round 2.


The two decks that I illustrated are my main ones, but I also have a NR deck focused on Draug and Sabrina's Inferno, with Blue Stripes Commando and Pavetta as an alternate win condition, though that is still in the works. I hope that you can see that the decks I have presented have a plethora of options, which at least rival the old Gwent. From what I can remember, usually there was only one win condition (since everything was way more consistent then), with a pointslam card that could win round one. I prefer the current iteration of Gwent since I have more options and the gameplan in my opinion is less set in stone from the beginning. Again, this does not mean that current Gwent is perfect. It needs some added consistency (not at the same level as old Gwent though), amongst other changes, since even though it's nice that I have more options, there are cases where draws are not ideal for any.
 
An archetype isnt a win-condition, its the mechanic its use e.g. Spies or Deathwith/Consume (this shouldnt be hard devided, because their synergy is huge). The last time i played I couldnt take hillock, kayan, renew, manticore, werecat ect. into ONE deck. Sure you have some more freedom in the deckbuilder, but at the game itself you havent. You just cant take all the strong combos in, you have to take some garbage for each good one. And again Deathwish is a positive example for archetyp-evolving. More cards and if i could get 3 of them, it may be good, but i have the feeling you have to play with a broken leg. Sure you have still some arms and one leg to compensate for it, but its still broken.
For the deathwish-deck: As the time i played, which was only the week after Homcecoming, most players created more than 8 points average. I had to waste mostly one or two turns to setup and lost much tempo about it. But sure, i am not a pro. But the fact that you only have 2 bronzecopies in deck means if you lose these two, you sometimes loses the hole connection of your deck. Old Gwent alway gave you the 3 third cards you could play with.
 
If people think that current Gwent has less synergies than pre-HC, my suggestion is to play Mimic mode in Arena. Compared to pre-HC, Mimic Mode is now a much more simple, (too) boring low point card play, because there are a lot of low strength cards that can be bricked by not creating synergies. Which means... exactly. And Divatyth gave some pretty elaborate examples above as well.

I would really like to see blacklisting coming back. That would help a lot.
 
An archetype isnt a win-condition, its the mechanic its use e.g. Spies or Deathwith/Consume (this shouldnt be hard devided, because their synergy is huge). The last time i played I couldnt take hillock, kayan, renew, manticore, werecat ect. into ONE deck.

I dont think you would be able to include all the powerful cards in the old gwent, even if they existed given the gold/silver restrictions.

To me it seems that the main complaint is that the provision costs is too low. I think that it could be fun to experiment with provision limit in the future, when new cards become available. This way we would be able to reduce power-creep by increasing availability of each card without increasing their actual power-level. While the bronze/gold ratio can be maintained by creating gold units that primarily synergize with other bronzes.

Gabor Zigrin, Zoltan Chivay are good examples, along with Isengrim and Yaevinn, Aelirenn.
Other cards that are exiting are crones. Big units, and thrive mechanics. Shupe+ Emhyr or any other high provision cards that really can put some points on the table.
Anna strenger + Tridam
Saesenthessis + Kaedweni revenant.
We already have a game with excellent synergies, things are but to improve.
 
Last edited:
I dont think you would be able to include all the powerful cards in the old gwent, even if they existed given the gold/silver restrictions.

To me it seems that the main complaint is that the provision costs is too low. I think that it could be fun to experiment with provision limit in the future, when new cards become available. This way we would be able to reduce power-creep by increasing availability of each card without increasing their actual power-level. While the bronze/gold ratio can be maintained by creating gold units that primarily synergize with other bronzes.

Gabor Zigrin, Zoltan Chivay are good examples, along with Isengrim and Yaevinn, Aelirenn.
Other cards that are exiting are crones. Big units, and thrive mechanics. Shupe+ Emhyr or any other high provision cards that really can put some points on the table.
Anna strenger + Tridam
Saesenthessis + Kaedweni revenant.
We already have a game with excellent synergies, things are but to improve.
You misinterpret singular two-card-combos as an Archetype.
 
You misinterpret singular two-card-combos as an Archetype.
My point is that you cannot argue that there is no card synergy in the current stage of gwent. But alright, lets agree on that the current gwent lacks archetypes. So what can be done about it? Maybe wait untill March when they release new cards instead of complaining on the forums?
 
My point is that you cannot argue that there is no card synergy in the current stage of gwent. But alright, lets agree on that the current gwent lacks archetypes. So what can be done about it? Maybe wait untill March when they release new cards instead of complaining on the forums?

HC has card synergies. HC doesn't really have strict archetypes. The people complaining are probably taking issue with the latter of the two.

I'm not sure why HC needs strict archetypes. You can no longer toss 3 copies of bronze cards into a deck and fill the rest out with cards fitting the concept. Ignoring the consistency aspect in play here, who cares? If you must instead fill a deck out with several concepts instead of defaulting to the obvious choice it's not necessarily bad unless the game play is bad. Whether the game play is bad is a matter of opinion.

With that said.... The game play is arguably lacking right now because card value vs provision cost is wildly inconsistent. Some cards fit pretty much anywhere. Others require a deck tailored around them to maximize value. Some always or reliably provide value at or above cost. Others cannot do so at all or reliably. Some are reasonable inclusions but disproportionately costly compared to certain other cards. Meh....
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
Beta GWENT had way more buffs and stuff. It was like nonstop buff-a-thon sometimes. Then that nervous end of round where you ponder who is going to use their Scorch first.
 
Maybe wait untill March when they release new cards instead of complaining on the forums?
I waited enough for a good turn. Now it's a over a year. And i read alway the same: You cant say this, till...; wait till the enxt XY; how do you know without playing it, they will fix it. And you know what? They didnt ix it. I said it before and it happened for most parts as i said. I am sick of this "hold-out-strategy".
 
I waited enough for a good turn. Now it's a over a year. And i read alway the same: You cant say this, till...; wait till the enxt XY; how do you know without playing it, they will fix it. And you know what? They didnt ix it. I said it before and it happened for most parts as i said. I am sick of this "hold-out-strategy".

What I belive is that many of you who are complaining are not playing this game because you feel alienated, since gwent no longer is what it was. And being alienated just implies that you are and will be very skeptic regardless of CDPR does to improve. (Which they did amazingly in the last update). A skeptic consumer is harder to sell to than an open minded, so I dont really know why they should listen to you, since nothing they do will ever be good enough. I think you people get more enjoyment out of complaining, for you social sake, rather than enjoying the game. And really, so far I had difficulties with understanding what you guys actually want from the developers. And if you cant communicate it propperly than there is no way CDPR will listen to you, or atleast you will have that feeling, since empty sentences can be interpreted in multiple of ways, implying that even if they listen, they might not understand exactly what you want.

I think you would have more sucess by creating a topic adressing a single issue, instead of compiling every possible argument in one thread. The reason you dont do it is obviously that you are afraid that it wont get enough momentum, because even when you are complaining about something specific, your peers may disagree even on that particular issue, and there is no fun in that, is there?
 
Last edited:
What I belive is that many of you who are complaining are not playing this game because you feel alienated, since gwent no longer is what it was. And being alienated just implies that you are and will be very skeptic regardless of CDPR does to improve. (Which they did amazingly in the last update). A skeptic consumer is harder to sell to than an open minded, so I dont really know why they should listen to you, since nothing they do will ever be good enough. I think you people get more enjoyment out of complaining, for you social sake, rather than enjoying the game. And really, so far I had difficulties with understanding what you guys actually want from the developers. And if you cant communicate it propperly than there is no way CDPR will listen to you, or atleast you will have that feeling, since empty sentences can be interpreted in multiple of ways, implying that even if they listen, they might not understand exactly what you want.

I think you would have more sucess by creating a topic adressing a single issue, instead of compiling every possible argument in one thread. The reason you dont do it is obviously that you are afraid that it wont get enough momentum, because even when you are complaining about something specific, your peers may disagree even on that particular issue, and there is no fun in that, is there?

That is simply not true.

Many of the issues that these "complainers" are complaining about are major, and there is a consensus about them.

When the devs announced they would cut out one row there was a MASSIVE consensus along the lines of "no, PLEASE don't do it, it's stupid!"

They went and did it anyway.

People were complaining about CA Spies and they wanted some work to be done to them - no one said BANISH THEM FROM EXISTENCE. But the devs simply got rid of them. Along with playing for card advantage (except for some surviving, but very kill-able cards that give you card advantage)

People were complaining about coinflip. They went and did some wonky hand-limit, weird round carryover stuff. The result? Coinflip is still not fixed. Card advantage is gone instead. Which, again, is not something people were asking for.

People were complaining about X, Y, Z and what we got instead was "a battlefield", playing for 3 points per turn, a stupid dark filter overlay, some other wonky stuff ZERO FANS asked for - and just removal, removal, removal of so many things that were liked and loved in old Gwent.

Then HC was released. There is again a consensus on major issues. For instance, RNG is problematic, we "complainers" are not enjoying the restricted access to our decks, the lack of tutoring, the increased chance factor. Will anything be done about it?
I highly doubt it.

CDPR fans are some of the most dedicated in the world. So for them to become bitter, it takes quite a bit of abuse.

Are the devs listening? I have no idea. But they sure as hell are not understanding us. Or if they do, they just think they know better.

And they will learn the hard way.
 
Top Bottom