Why does Ragh Nar Roog exist?

+
He's pretty good at high rank but I have more issues with Skellige decks.

Here's what's weird about SK decks. I was doing reasonably ok with my own variation of a Svalblod deck, probably better win rate than any ST or MO deck I constructed. Bear in mind I built my Svalblod deck very soon after CC and well before it featured on Artuza's Snapshot #8, so it's probably not META, but it's good enough. As soon as I picked up a few wins, however, I started to face stuff I couldn't counter - namely NG Lock/Steal. A lot. Now I don't see Ardal on the Artuza META, so why would I face it so often with a deck that struggles against it?

Strange, no? It's obvious why anyone faces SK decks a lot of the time, and MO for that matter, because netdecking is way out of control in this game. This loops me back around to the subject of Rag Nar Roog - SK Self Harm would absolutely crap on a RNR spell'a'tel deck, and in all my time using a Svalblod deck I have faced Francesca's double RNR precisely....zero times.
 
Here's what's weird about SK decks. I was doing reasonably ok with my own variation of a Svalblod deck, probably better win rate than any ST or MO deck I constructed. Bear in mind I built my Svalblod deck very soon after CC and well before it featured on Artuza's Snapshot #8, so it's probably not META, but it's good enough. As soon as I picked up a few wins, however, I started to face stuff I couldn't counter - namely NG Lock/Steal. A lot. Now I don't see Ardal on the Artuza META, so why would I face it so often with a deck that struggles against it?

Strange, no? It's obvious why anyone faces SK decks a lot of the time, and MO for that matter, because netdecking is way out of control in this game. This loops me back around to the subject of Rag Nar Roog - SK Self Harm would absolutely crap on a RNR spell'a'tel deck, and in all my time using a Svalblod deck I have faced Francesca's double RNR precisely....zero times.

Fran double RNR isn't that popular from what I can see so there is nothing strange about not running into it.

Netdecking is "out of control" in all card games. Its part of the game and there is no changing that.
 
Fran double RNR isn't that popular from what I can see so there is nothing strange about not running into it.

Netdecking is "out of control" in all card games. Its part of the game and there is no changing that.
There is, as I've stated before. The devs need to heavily limit what cards people have access to. But of course, they won't.
 

rrc

Forum veteran
There is, as I've stated before. The devs need to heavily limit what cards people have access to. But of course, they won't.
Basically making the game Pay To Win? I don't think so. CDPR wants every new player to get their collection ASAP, but for the vanity items, they want the players to invest more time or money. This is the right business model which encourages new players to try the game. If getting new cards or a decent collection is going to take huge time, people will simply quit the game or it will create a negative environment where people will complaint about Pay2Win model.
 
I wasn't thinking p2w. Something like, new players can't access certain cards until they reach a certain level, like any good RPG haha
There is no stopping the "tubers" now. I made a rather elaborate post explaining this on another topic. You only need 5/6 full-time Gwent players (about 0.5% of the player base) to affect the other 99.5% of other players decks. That seems very wrong to me.
 
You can have the exact deck card by card, but there are lots of opportunities to misplay, and the 5 or 6 youtubers, don't necessarily have the decks 100% right all the time, you can add tech to your decks, according to the meta, or the weakest match ups.
As more and more cards are added, there will be more variety, and as more mechanics are introduced, more possibility for new decks, or win just by playing better... So, when people say, remove artifacts, or remove that, I think nothing should be removed, but more things should be added to counter things that are too powerful, that will make the game more interesting.

I think that's the way to go, not just putting a wall for new players, that goes against the best interest of the game.
 
You can have the exact deck card by card, but there are lots of opportunities to misplay, and the 5 or 6 youtubers, don't necessarily have the decks 100% right all the time, you can add tech to your decks, according to the meta, or the weakest match ups.
As more and more cards are added, there will be more variety, and as more mechanics are introduced, more possibility for new decks, or win just by playing better... So, when people say, remove artifacts, or remove that, I think nothing should be removed, but more things should be added to counter things that are too powerful, that will make the game more interesting.

I think that's the way to go, not just putting a wall for new players, that goes against the best interest of the game.

They need to work on the game first and stop messing about with new cards/mechanics. The game itself doesn't work well enough yet - it's the only game I've seen emerge from Beta and go into Beta....!!

I wrote a lengthy post about what I perceive as wrong, from the cointoss (why a 5 point boost? Just stick an ACTUALLY immune 5 point unit on that side of the board, that can't be damaged) to the deal itself. As you rightly say, the likes of Swim lose matches and when he puts up a video - say the Tower/Ban Ard glitch - it's not like it works every time. For me, the game needs to give more control to the players. Bigger hands, guaranteed cards, more random matchups, etc., for a start.
 
More cards are welcome but, the best ones only go to SK/NG, then MO. History has proven that. The game consists of decks played by unemployed young men haha

ST got poison and harmony last update. Anyone think either are any good?

Long may they continue to remain unemployed and successful at avoiding...the matrix (wink)
 
The game has ways to give more control, tutors, thinning, etc, I think its one of the less random card games out there, way less than MTG at least, unless you want to play chess, there is no randomness there...
Think about it, 25 cards, you draw 16 with 6 to 7 mulligans, add thinning and one tutor... more than that and you would be guaranteed to have all the cards you want all the time... (you can play Bran and you will draw your entire deck if you don't like randomness).
 
The game has ways to give more control, tutors, thinning, etc, I think its one of the less random card games out there, way less than MTG at least, unless you want to play chess, there is no randomness there...
Think about it, 25 cards, you draw 16 with 6 to 7 mulligans, add thinning and one tutor... more than that and you would be guaranteed to have all the cards you want all the time... (you can play Bran and you will draw your entire deck if you don't like randomness).

Please bear in mind I'm not a card game player. My personal involvement in Gwent came from Witcher, not MTG. I didn't even know what MTG stood for a month ago. I see games as being things you can be good at and control most of the outcome. Gwent has a bad cointoss, a bad matchup system, bad mulligan without blacklisting and a heavy reliance on the quality of your RNG deal/card timings. But these are my opinions, not shared by all - someone who doesn't play sports games and plays poker, for example, might see it as having loads of control.
 
Remember its a card game, by definition, there should be some randomness, I don't think there is another card game with less randomness than Gwent, obviously I don't know them all.
As I said, there are other games without randomness at all, but if you play card games, you cannot complain about randomness (coin toss mechanics is a totally different thing, and the matchup system, I highly doubt is rigged to benefit, who?)

Just giving you an example from MtG, your deck is 60 cards, you need mana and spells in a starting hand of 7 cards, if you have too few mana or too much, you probably are screwed, if you don't like your starting hand, you can mulligan it entirely (not partially), at the cost of one card... you would be driven insane in 5 mins playing that game, lol.
 
Remember its a card game, by definition, there should be some randomness, I don't think there is another card game with less randomness than Gwent, obviously I don't know them all.
As I said, there are other games without randomness at all, but if you play card games, you cannot complain about randomness (coin toss mechanics is a totally different thing, and the matchup system, I highly doubt is rigged to benefit, who?)

Just giving you an example from MtG, your deck is 60 cards, you need mana and spells in a starting hand of 7 cards, if you have too few mana or too much, you probably are screwed, if you don't like your starting hand, you can mulligan it entirely (not partially), at the cost of one card... you would be driven insane in 5 mins playing that game, lol.

Wow - that's one game I'll NEVER try!!! How does it have any popularity, even your little description makes it sound mind-bogglingly bad.

Card games are not great for me; I hate the perceived unfairness. Since they brought in this leader challenge, I have faced - understandably - Calveit about five times and I promise you the opponent has had Letho, Auckes and Serrit in their hand EVERY time. I can't get my head around the unfairness of RNG deals, unfortunately, and how impactful it is on the result. I think because a lot of deck synergies are quite strong, but reliant on card order, it becomes very, very important to get a good deal or face a bad one.

This is why I'm such a relentlessly boring, negative poster!!!!
 
The problem with RNR, but you could list here as well Regis and other cards, is their ability to be fitted in almost every deck. (with maybe 1 or 2 movement-cards to support them)
In old GWENT you could often make educated guesses, which decks would run (both) gold weather-effects and adjust your gameplan accordingly:
-force a long round 1
-win round 1 and bleed round 2
-...
TOGETHER with row-stacking, silver mages, etc. this gave every deck means to counter weather-effects and felt (at least to me) balanced.
With the provision system, this became much harder, almost every deck can and sometimes does play RNR, Regis and (before it's nerf into oblivion) Dragon Dream+Nivellen. If you were aware of your opponent playing these cards, you could bleed your opponent in round 2 and solve the problem, but without knowledge you almost auto-loose in a long round 3 or need to bleed everyone on pure speculation.

My main problem here is, that it doesn't feel good. You should always be able to point at your mistake(s) in a loss.
Losses due to:
-bad draws
-the opponent having a highly binary counter card
-the opponent playing a long round win condition without warning
-match-up losses
(always) feel bad to one of the players. Since he was punished for a potentially (statistically) correct play.

Trying to change such an iconic card might be quite hard:
-raising its provision cost, doesn't really change the maximum power potential of the card and would make it more binary
-reducing its damage per turn to 1, would make the card worse then regular weather-effects
-limiting its duration to 6 turns might work, but kills its uniqueness and feels weak

I think the best way to fix these cards, (together with some other issues) would be to re-increase the average bodies of all units. A 20 point card (in a 10 turns) is less problematic, when cards vary between 6-14 or 8-16 points, instead of 4-12.
Unfortunately this would be a ridiculously big change which would need a rebalancing of engines, removal, deathblow...

Btw. does anyone know why CDPR reduced the average strength of units pre-homecoming in the first place?
Always felt off to me. Since it makes balancing much harder, when all point values are much lower. (and you don't want fractions)
 
I think a way to balance it is to make it an artifact, that if removed, removes the effect, so it needs to be present in the game.
 
I wasn't thinking p2w. Something like, new players can't access certain cards until they reach a certain level, like any good RPG haha
There is no stopping the "tubers" now. I made a rather elaborate post explaining this on another topic. You only need 5/6 full-time Gwent players (about 0.5% of the player base) to affect the other 99.5% of other players decks. That seems very wrong to me.

I don't see how thats any kind of solution. So new players get an even bigger disadvantage on top of being new? What does that solve?

Edit: Sorry PM me or continue in a different thread if you want to respond thx.
 
Wtf @CDProjectRED why do you still have so OP not BEATABLE cards in this game ?
I mean it should be a lesson from the past that you added such ***** like Sabbath this card destroyed the game.

And with Francesca + Ragh Nar Roog = ez win no skill needed when you play it in the last round.

NERV Ragh Nar Roog is the only field effect that is neverending WHY ?

And why do you do the same mistakes again and again ? Overpowered Cards ?

With best critiques.
 
Top Bottom