Suggestion: Year of the Nerf
Despite being some time from the new year, I would like to suggest that as Gwent ages, we need a year focused on nerfs. As I think about Gwent, I believe it suffers from two major (and intertwined) flaws: it is losing its strategic appeal, and it is getting stale. I think a significant contributor to both is the substantial difference between high end cards and junk cards, ill-conceived cards that are too binary and/or benefit sloppy play, and heavy reliance upon a small number of utility cards to control excesses of some cards. I doubt this is a pragmatic suggestion as I don’t know how it would be monetized, but hopefully developers will consider the very real problems it would help address.
Ultimately, my goal is twofold: to allow the elimination of unlimited removal (Heat Wave, Invocation, Eilhart, Muzzle), and to allow the elimination of all-purpose tutors (Oneiromancy, Royal Decree). For reasons I give below, I think both types of cards are horrible for the game but are absolutely necessary for its playability in its present form.
Unlimited removal (like Heatwave) allows the illusion that any card is balanced because it has a counter; in essence, it allows a “remove or lose” style of card design that is very binary, and not strategically interesting. It allows the type of excessive removal that leaves nothing on the board to strategize around. I think tall removal is important; I think removal of artifacts is important; I think banishing is important. I also think these types of removal need to be available in a form that is not virtually unusable unless the “right” targets appear. But not all this removal should be in the same card, and ideally through cards that can themselves be interacted with. Good examples of removal card(s) along the lines I appreciate are Villentretenmerth (promotes interesting tactics) and Kurt (gives choice of tech alternatives). Of course, restricting removal is only feasible if all the existing “remove or lose” cards can be eliminated from the game.
All purpose tutors are presently needed for consistency. When top cards play for 10 or more times the value of other cards in the deck, matches are won or lost based upon drawing these cards; tutoring them reduces variability. But allowing any card to be tutored also reduces the need for players to adapt to what they draw (simply tutor it instead) reducing both the strategy and freshness of each game. If cards are more equal in value, tutoring can focus on situational cards rather than big cards, thereby making tutoring strategic rather than rote.
Unfortunately, between power-creep and occasional poor judgement, a lot of really bad cards have not only made their way into the game but have become prominently featured in the top decks. To adequately convey my vision, I have made a list of cards I believe need nerfing (I am not sure it is complete as it is easy to overlook some). I don’t necessarily want to rank order them as I don’t want to quibble about things like whether Simlas is better or worse than Melusine, but some cards are clearly more damaging than others, so I have sorted my suggested nerf targets into high, medium, and low priority. I also want to give some indication of why I think each card listed is problematic. But certain reasons occur repeatedly. I have the following code for these (some cards will trigger multiple codes):
Top Priority Nerfs
Neutral Cards
Medium Priority Nerfs
Neutral Cards
Low Priority (borderline need) Nerfs
Neutral Cards
Despite being some time from the new year, I would like to suggest that as Gwent ages, we need a year focused on nerfs. As I think about Gwent, I believe it suffers from two major (and intertwined) flaws: it is losing its strategic appeal, and it is getting stale. I think a significant contributor to both is the substantial difference between high end cards and junk cards, ill-conceived cards that are too binary and/or benefit sloppy play, and heavy reliance upon a small number of utility cards to control excesses of some cards. I doubt this is a pragmatic suggestion as I don’t know how it would be monetized, but hopefully developers will consider the very real problems it would help address.
Ultimately, my goal is twofold: to allow the elimination of unlimited removal (Heat Wave, Invocation, Eilhart, Muzzle), and to allow the elimination of all-purpose tutors (Oneiromancy, Royal Decree). For reasons I give below, I think both types of cards are horrible for the game but are absolutely necessary for its playability in its present form.
Unlimited removal (like Heatwave) allows the illusion that any card is balanced because it has a counter; in essence, it allows a “remove or lose” style of card design that is very binary, and not strategically interesting. It allows the type of excessive removal that leaves nothing on the board to strategize around. I think tall removal is important; I think removal of artifacts is important; I think banishing is important. I also think these types of removal need to be available in a form that is not virtually unusable unless the “right” targets appear. But not all this removal should be in the same card, and ideally through cards that can themselves be interacted with. Good examples of removal card(s) along the lines I appreciate are Villentretenmerth (promotes interesting tactics) and Kurt (gives choice of tech alternatives). Of course, restricting removal is only feasible if all the existing “remove or lose” cards can be eliminated from the game.
All purpose tutors are presently needed for consistency. When top cards play for 10 or more times the value of other cards in the deck, matches are won or lost based upon drawing these cards; tutoring them reduces variability. But allowing any card to be tutored also reduces the need for players to adapt to what they draw (simply tutor it instead) reducing both the strategy and freshness of each game. If cards are more equal in value, tutoring can focus on situational cards rather than big cards, thereby making tutoring strategic rather than rote.
Unfortunately, between power-creep and occasional poor judgement, a lot of really bad cards have not only made their way into the game but have become prominently featured in the top decks. To adequately convey my vision, I have made a list of cards I believe need nerfing (I am not sure it is complete as it is easy to overlook some). I don’t necessarily want to rank order them as I don’t want to quibble about things like whether Simlas is better or worse than Melusine, but some cards are clearly more damaging than others, so I have sorted my suggested nerf targets into high, medium, and low priority. I also want to give some indication of why I think each card listed is problematic. But certain reasons occur repeatedly. I have the following code for these (some cards will trigger multiple codes):
- Card plays for too many points in a single play
- Card is “answer or lose”
- Card is too binary for other reasons (coin dependence, draw order dependence, matchup dependent, too much variability, etc.)
- Card is too uninteractive or resistance to strategic response.
- Card promotes poor quality play.
- Card has too much potential for its provisions.
- Card is impossible to keep balanced.
Top Priority Nerfs
Neutral Cards
- Sihil 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- Ornate Censor 3
- Haunt 1
- Viy 3, 4, 5
- Fleder 2, 6
- Masquerade Ball 1
- Vilgefortz: Renegade (binary combination with Imperial Practitioner)
- Coup de Grace 7
- Cahir Dyffryn 2, 3, 5, 6
- Vypper 2
- Philippe Van Moorlehem 2
- Amphibious Assault 1, 7
- Siege 1
- King Henselt 2
- King Foltest 2
- Feign Death 1
- Gezras of Leyda 2
- Simlas Finn aep Dabairr 1, 3, 4
- Gedyneith 1
- Fucusya 1
- Melusine 2, 4, 5, 7
- Dagur Two Blades 2
- Magic Compass 3, 4, 7
- Messenger of the Sea 2
- Passiflora 1
- Dies Irae 1, 7
- Sacred Flame 1
- Roland Bleinheim 2
Medium Priority Nerfs
Neutral Cards
- Sunset Wanderers 1
- Aerondight 1, 3, 7
- Ring of Favor 1, 5
- Golden Nekker 1, 3
- Idarran of Ulivo 2
- Arcane Tome (tutoring too easy and cheap)
- Lady of the Lake (tutors only cards that ought not exist)
- Koshchey 2
- Artaud 1, 3
- Coup de Grace 7
- Jan Calveit 5
- Vilgefortz 1
- Imperial Practitioner 3
- Draug 1
- Tissaia de Vries 2
- Chapter of Wizards 1
- Raffard’s Vengeance 1
- Dandelion (too much carry over)
- Princess Pavetta (binary combinations)
- Mutagenerator (dangerous level of potential carryover)
- Call of the Forest (the type of general tutor I think is bad for the game)
- Francesca Findabair 2
- Torque (dangerous levels of carryover)
- Blood Eagle 7
- Eist Tuirseach 1
- Lippy Gudmund (dangerous combinations, restricts design space)
- Rioghan the Undying 3
- Sigvald 2, 3
- The Witchfinder 1, 2
- King of Beggars 1
- Philippa Eilhart 1, 3
- Vivaldi Bank 3, 6
- Savolla 1
- Imke 2
- Whoreson’s Freakshow 4
- Gellert Bleinheim 2
- Tunnel Drill 2
Low Priority (borderline need) Nerfs
Neutral Cards
- Syanna 2
- Alzur 3
- Angouleme 3
- Hen Gaideth Sword 3, 7
- Regis Reborn 1
- Unseen Elder 1
- Arachas Queen (restricts design space)
- Kikimore Queen 2
- Witch Apprentice 2, 6
- Ard Gaeth 7
- Anna Henrietta 5
- Kolgrim 2, 5
- Bribery 3
- Hefty Helge 2
- War Elephant 1
- Erland 1
- King Radovid V 1
- Vysogota of Corvo 2
- Alumni (too easy to cash in on patience carryover)
- Saskia Commander 4
- Iorveth’s Gambit 3, 4
- Eldain 4
- Aglais 4
- Shaping Nature 7
- Vanadain (unhealthy combinations)
- Arnaghad (dangerous combination with Sukrus)
- Crach an Craite 2
- Junod of Belhaven 5
- Sigrdrifa’s Rite 6
- Knut the Callous (dangerous combinations – but very strategic)
- Drummond Shield Maiden (dangerous combinations)
- Discard package in general (too draw dependent)
- Salamander 3
- Fallen Knight 4