I should know for now. Who has a Ferrari, won't know how suks is to.go to work with metro
I'm not touching the poll because the options are limited and somewhat ambiguous, but I really can't see why anyone would be opposed to a matchmaking filter for the casual unranked mode that either let's you avoid specific leaders or else entire factions.
With that way all NG players will have to play against each other. Yeah i am in.
Last edited:
I agree. Filter for casual would be ok.
Maybe even for Seasonal.
A filter for ranked mode makes no sense.
Neither. Imo it makes no sense to be constantly picky in a multiplayer game, so that attitude should not be encouraged with such an option. And as for rejecting, I've already explained my views at quite some length.
Don't you think building a deck explicitly devised for countering what annoys people and then filtering out everything but their most hated faction would help wash some of the salt?
I'd find it amusing.
Exactly, it's casual mode. Reduce the reward for it, and lets have fun, and leave the oil on fire for fire to ranked bs show.
No. And even if it did, the mechanic still wouldn't make sense.
Well your initial response was "it would be punishing players for a playing a particular faction". Ironically someone has since made a post in the Gameplay section about how non-meta players are being punished for not playing meta decks which was my counter to your point to begin with. It seems you are ok with punishing some more than others or you fall into the camp that does the punishing so you're not affected. Either way I'm not saying my suggestion is perfect, others have suggested lessening the reward if you go that route or making it only applicable to casual matches which are both good ideas.
And blacklisting a faction or rejecting a match-up makes the problem even worse. We already talked about this. Let me put it even more straightforward: blacklisting/rejecting can be exploited far too easily, which shifts the meta into the wrong direction. This, or anything like it, is simply not the solution. It never will be and it should never be implemented, period.
Blacklisting punishes other players, choosing not to play meta decks punishes you. That's a key difference, which makes your counter less than good. And that has been my point all along; these suggestions would punish others.
My decks have never been meta, never optimal (because I don't just copy lists), and there have been periods when certain factions have been incredibly annoying. Spella'tael (the current "unitless" decks have nothing on that), Swim's dorfs, Skellige axemen, etc. have all dominated the meta at some point and have all been a real pain to face even when getting the perfect draw. Yet, I've never even briefly wished I could just somehow block those specific factions, because they've been part of the game, plain and simple. Besides, there has never been a time when [faction] matchups have only consisted of one deck or deck type. Therefore, blocking the entire faction would feel stupid and like an overreaction.
All of that, along with what I wrote in the first paragraph, is why I am firmly against these ideas. And will continue to be.
Cool. We'll agree to disagree there. As it is now as a non-meta player you're already being blacklisted, I've quit the game for some months now as a result because the game is forcing me to play a meta deck or be punished otherwise. At the least with a filter of some kind players can still enjoy the game how they choose to. The ppl that play gwent for an easy win or exploit are basically the ones playing meta anyway so that would not change, the ones who play the game for fun and challenge will seek out opponents just not the ones that are basically bots or at least not be bombarded by the same bot match-up one after another.
I agree that this is an issue. However, I disagree with your solution. The problem should be solved at its roots, meaning creating a more varied meta by rebalancing factions or by releasing a new expansion (one that is balanced). As it stands now, Gwent's biggest issue is the lack of viable decks. However, that's not solely due to a lack of balance, but also, on a more fundamental level, because of how Gwent works compared to other CCG.
I had no idea.
Actually, doesn't make sense for me XD
I love how free to play this game is
I don't get it why are you so offended on banning a faction...
Ranked mode is the mode where meta should count.
The idea of casual mode is to play some games and have fun.
If casual has to be competitive, then it will not be casual anymore.
Man, you are even more hard headed then me
You're not allowed to attack us any more than other users. One post deleted.
We do not close threads simply because we don't like them, or because we're biased. If you have a problem with an action that has been taken, you are free to contact us via PM, but not complain in public. The rules state as much.
We do not close threads simply because we don't like them, or because we're biased. If you have a problem with an action that has been taken, you are free to contact us via PM, but not complain in public. The rules state as much.
I've gathered all points into one post. There are five reasons.
1. A ban/reject mechanism is the wrong solution
Like I have explained, banning/rejecting a faction is not a good solution and it's only being suggested because some decks are far too common (and either annoying, OP or both). Banning a faction is like putting on a band-aid, instead of properly treating the wound. We have to look further and deeper. Because, if we don't, and we continue to band-aid everything, the game will not improve. If we accept such a solution, it sets a wrong precedence for Gwent.
2. A ban/reject mechanism can be exploited for other purposes
Every player can just ban the faction or reject the match-up their deck is weak against, creating an unnatural win-rate. Furthermore, they can actually start optimizing their decks, knowing they will never have to face X faction for an even higher win-rate. Ironically, the opposite can happen too, when players do not optimize their decks, they might no longer have a favorable match-up (because others ban such decks), which might actually lower their win-rate. This doesn't create a balance, instead it creates more polarization. To put it bluntly: it makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker.
3. A ban/reject mechanism makes the meta worse
Because of the above (point 2), it also shifts the meta into a weird direction, creating decks that should normally not be able to thrive. At first, you might think that this promotes variety, but at what cost? You are getting super-optimized decks that can run rampart, which exacerbates the issue a ban/reject mechanism was meant to solve.
4. A ban/reject mechanism will punish players unjustly
Furthermore, as mentioned by Draco, it punish players unjustly (i.e. creates too much collateral damage) because there is a major flaw in implementing a ban/reject mechanism. What about those players that are actually trying out a different deck (home-brewed or otherwise)? Can you spot those? No, not always. So, if Nilfgaard does get banned by everyone, for example, then that means that no one can make another non-meta NG deck. Thus a ban/reject mechanism actually adds more fuel to the fire, instead of less.
5. A ban/reject mechanism might be hated more (then what it tries to solve)
The last reason is somewhat of a paradox. But, if players truly want to have fun (i.e. chill out) in casual, then they shouldn't play (annoying) meta-decks. Yet, this is still happening. So, players have another idea about what casual should be. Because of this, we should be careful with changing casual. I don't know how many people are annoyed by faction X, but it may very well be that more players will get annoyed when their faction gets blacklisted.
6. [Bonus] No other CCG has done this either because of good reasons.
Can you now see why it's a bad idea? If not, try to refute my points.