Why blame the players?

+
I agree that blaming players is absolutely never the solution, unless they're using an exploit. That being said, I also think that it's important for players to abuse these intended-but-unfair mechanics to cast a spotlight onto what needs to be fixed or adjusted. This can only ever help the game balance, in my eyes. I think the more abused mechanics like Poison definitely need to be looked at, and cards like Scenarios also need a second look (along with Artifacts as a whole, but that's a story for another time).
 
Players are contributing to the meta, that's a fact. However, it's an opinion whether or not that contribution is making the game environment better or worse.

Many are bringing the consequence of having a repetitive or predictable environment. Netdecking contributes to it.

Why many online games are bringing expansions or additions in the first place?

To prevent the exact same consequence.

How is this consequence not bad if it's avoided by all online game designs out there? :shrug:

That Netdecking is badly contributing to a game environment is not an opinion, is a fact.

Either way, you are implying you can blame players because they knowingly make the environment more toxic?

So, how much does sportsmanship factor into blaming players?

Yes, blamers bring bad sportmanship. Fair.

Yet I imply any player can blame other (as i would like to be blamed aswell) if it can trigger a positive consequence for the game environment, outweighting the bad consequences of the action of blaming itself.
 
Yes... they were an example just so you could make a link between any other point and it's consequence, but nevermind.

A consequence of your action is your fault. Even if you don't want to admit it.

Playing the game the way it was designed is 100% not your fault. That isn't even debatable.

In any online game design, player actions are going to indirectly change it, atleast if they contribute to a big scale consequence.

What players say about the game and how the interact with it is going to have some influence on design. That's true but it's still not the players fault in what the devs end up doing. The devs can make the problems better, worse, or ignore them. That's their choice. Gwent has a long history of players complaining about the meta being dominated by a small amount of super powerful decks. That is a result of how the devs designed the game that encourages players to use those decks.

This has happened in all history of online gaming. Including Gwent:
  • What happens if lots of players choose to netdeck? Predictable environment! Blames on forums! Quits!
  • What happens if lots of players choose to not pay enough? Journey!
  • What happens if lots of players choose to abuse the timer? Turn time reduction!
  • What happens if lots of players choose to use X deck or X card? Nerf!
No, players are net decking too much because of the design of the game. Too many dead cards, not enough choices in deck building, too many badly designed cards. Not the players fault. Players aren't paying enough because they don't need to or want to. This is a result of the game being too generous early on and the game not getting better over time. I stopped playing Gwent because it got too stale, boring, and didn't fix it's many problems. So any chance of me spending money went out the window. If players are abusing the timer then the game gave them that ability. It's douchey behavior but it's on the game to prevent an obvious problem. If a card needs to be nerfed how is that the fault of the players for using an over powered card? That makes zero sense. The card should have been better designed.

Do you really think if devs would be able to test thousands of possible combinations, while adding content, keeping a perfect balance and foresighting problems wouldn't be? Or that a perfect online game design formula exists?

I've lost count of the cards they put in the game that were obviously going to be over powered and abused. Scenarios were some of the latest examples of this before I stopped playing. If the devs aren't studying the game and properly play testing it that's on them, not the players. The game doesn't need to be perfectly balanced, it just needs some common sense steps in design to prevent the bigger issues and fix the smaller ones. Legends of runeterra has a great formula to make the game fun but also balance any problems. Gwent has never done a good job in this area.

Sounds that your opinion has delusional basis to me.

Don't think so :)
Post automatically merged:

That Netdecking is badly contributing to a game environment is not an opinion, is a fact.

Netdecking is generally a bad thing, especially in Gwent. It's better in other games that have so many viable options that it's not a significant problem. Netdecking is impossible to stop in card games so the only thing that can be done is to alleviate it's significance. Basically no one wants to face the same deck 10 times in a row. If that's happening then the game has failed in giving enough options to the players.
Post automatically merged:

In a recent thread user @Anarinyane wrote, brilliantly imo, this:
"To me, Nilfgaard as a faction appears like that kid in the sandbox, that instead of playing with the other kids just messes up everyone else’s sandcastles."
This is a similar question, who do you blame if you are one of the other kids? The kid that destroys your castle or life/god/sandbox constructors for enabling it? Do you blame facebook if someone insults you on their platform?
At the end of the day the very question who's most at fault is irrelevant. OP factions/mechanics/cards are not features of the game, they are errors that need balancing. Yes people exploit them, and yes the devs are most at fault for not addressing such issues. If people don't complain however nothing changes. Complaining and argumenting are the only tools we have to change the game from a fan standpoint, and good for that, otherwise we would be playing with sandbox bullies everyday, or not playing at all.

Has anyone ever designed a sandbox and intentionally given tools to children encouraging children to destroy the sandcastles of other children? No.

I agree that they are problems that need to be fixed.
 
Last edited:
Playing the game the way it was designed is 100% not your fault. That isn't even debatable.



What players say about the game and how the interact with it is going to have some influence on design. That's true but it's still not the players fault in what the devs end up doing. The devs can make the problems better, worse, or ignore them. That's their choice. Gwent has a long history of players complaining about the meta being dominated by a small amount of super powerful decks. That is a result of how the devs designed the game that encourages players to use those decks.


No, players are net decking too much because of the design of the game. Too many dead cards, not enough choices in deck building, too many badly designed cards. Not the players fault. Players aren't paying enough because they don't need to or want to. This is a result of the game being too generous early on and the game not getting better over time. I stopped playing Gwent because it got too stale, boring, and didn't fix it's many problems. So any chance of me spending money went out the window. If players are abusing the timer then the game gave them that ability. It's douchey behavior but it's on the game to prevent an obvious problem. If a card needs to be nerfed how is that the fault of the players for using an over powered card? That makes zero sense. The card should have been better designed.



I've lost count of the cards they put in the game that were obviously going to be over powered and abused. Scenarios were some of the latest examples of this before I stopped playing. If the devs aren't studying the game and properly play testing it that's on them, not the players. The game doesn't need to be perfectly balanced, it just needs some common sense steps in design to prevent the bigger issues and fix the smaller ones. Legends of runeterra has a great formula to make the game fun but also balance any problems. Gwent has never done a good job in this area.



Don't think so :)
Post automatically merged:



Netdecking is generally a bad thing, especially in Gwent. It's better in other games that have so many viable options that it's not a significant problem. Netdecking is impossible to stop in card games so the only thing that can be done is to alleviate it's significance. Basically no one wants to face the same deck 10 times in a row. If that's happening then the game has failed in giving enough options to the players.
Post automatically merged:



Has anyone ever designed a sandbox and intentionally given tools to children encouraging children to destroy the sandcastles of other children? No.

I agree that they are problems that need to be fixed.
Blaming player's is not right yes(Blaming in general is not right), but as a player, you don't have to contribute to the Wrong parts of the game by abusing certain things, instead, trying to play in a good manner(Trying to be Creative in deckbuilding, Trying not to annoy your opponent, Not abusing Overpowered and annoying Decks etc etc), would be better for others aswell as yourself.
A bad toxic Community can make a good game bad just as much as bad Developers (and our Devs here are not bad at all, and not that good either, yet).
 
Having an interesting discussion with a friend, he's a bit of a smartass, he bringed up this word:

Reciprocity.

Basicly in any social environment, reciprocity is desired so all actions, or their consequences, are benefiting the involved sides, avoiding possible conflicts.

In Gwent:

An oversimplified example would be facing an opponent that brings a strategy that you didn't know, where you learn or experience something new and he earns the win for caughting you offguard. GG.

So i bring up this question,

Are you a player contributing to a reciprocal environment? If not, why?

How much does sportsmanship factor into blaming players?

Let's bring reciprocity to the act of blaming.

Can the blame of one player towards another, bring a consequence that benefits all Gwent players?

Interesting... :oops:
 
Last edited:
Blaming player's is not right yes(Blaming in general is not right), but as a player, you don't have to contribute to the Wrong parts of the game by abusing certain things, instead, trying to play in a good manner(Trying to be Creative in deckbuilding, Trying not to annoy your opponent, Not abusing Overpowered and annoying Decks etc etc), would be better for others aswell as yourself.
A bad toxic Community can make a good game bad just as much as bad Developers (and our Devs here are not bad at all, and not that good either, yet).

There is absolutely nothing abusing about playing a strong deck. You can't be creative if a game doesn't give you the tools to do so and be successful. That's why players get funneled into a few meta decks.

Personally I have seen zero difference in card game communities. They usually overlap anyway.
 
There is absolutely nothing abusing about playing a strong deck. You can't be creative if a game doesn't give you the tools to do so and be successful. That's why players get funneled into a few meta decks.

Personally I have seen zero difference in card game communities. They usually overlap anyway.
Strong deck is different than a Broken Deck, there are many decks that are Strong, but there is like 1-3 Decks that are Broken, and happen to get Nerfed after sometime, and even if one deck is Broken, you are going to face that deck in most of your games, that is abusing.
 
Playing the game the way it was designed is 100% not your fault. That isn't even debatable.

...

What players say about the game and how the interact with it is going to have some influence on design. That's true

...

Netdecking is generally a bad thing

...

Netdecking is impossible to stop

Basicly you admit that players influence game design, that netdecking is bad, but still want to give all responsability to devs. Right?

Ok.

Keep influencing the game badly, at the end is better for everyone. No?

Legends of runeterra has a great formula to make the game fun but also balance any problems. Gwent has never done a good job in this area.

A great formula... bringing a logical explanation would be much better.

You can't be creative if a game doesn't give you the tools to do so and be successful.

In order to be creative, maybe you need to risk to be unsuccessfull. Just a thought.

I don't want to keep going on forever, as i have addressed the "it's all devs fault" opinion many times, i won't answer anything else related to that.
 
Basicly you admit that players influence game design, that netdecking is bad, but still want to give all responsability to devs. Right?

Players influence game design based on how it is ALREADY DESIGNED. How it is already designed and where the devs go from there is all on the devs.

Whether or not net decking is good or bad isn't the point. It's inevitable in card games and it is on the devs to design the game in a way that makes it not matter.

Ok.

Keep influencing the game badly, at the end is better for everyone. No?

Playing the game the way it was designed isn't "influencing the game badly". It's playing the game.


In order to be creative, maybe you need to risk to be unsuccessfull. Just a thought.

You can make fun decks but ultimately if you don't win with them enough almost no one is going to use them. People tend to want to win in competitive games whether it's in ranked or casual.
Post automatically merged:

A great formula... bringing a logical explanation would be much better.

The design of the deck building gives much more freedom. Mixing factions and not being forced into throwing in cruddy bronzes that you don't even want in your deck. Nearly all cards are playable instead of some being so much better than the rest. Their process on buffing or nerfing cards also keeps them from making unnecessary errors. They don't rush their decisions and always explain their thought process to the players.
Post automatically merged:

Strong deck is different than a Broken Deck, there are many decks that are Strong, but there is like 1-3 Decks that are Broken, and happen to get Nerfed after sometime, and even if one deck is Broken, you are going to face that deck in most of your games, that is abusing.

Which is on the devs to change.

It's like playing Call of Duty and complaining about people using the best gun.
 
Ok, let's get more serious.

Bring me an example of an online game design that fits into your logic of preventing all player actions to have negative outcomes.

If it doesn't exist, which basis your opinion has?

When did I say anything about preventing player action? I'm saying that if a game is designed well it can keep net decking from hurting the game to the extent that it has hurt Gwent.

I play legends of runeterra and even though it hasn't even been out of release for very long it already has so much variety in it that net decking isn't a big problem.
 
Eh, when you have brain dead decks like Dead-Eye spam, purify all the units and swarm with Crows while still getting out Lippy, Monster decks that abuse the ever living hell out of Cathir or however you spell his name and NG decks which run nothing but locks, seize and poison...yeah, people are going to start blaming players for running that kind of stuff. I mean after all it IS their choice to run that stuff...

I don't support name calling or whatever but these kinds of decks are obnoxious and frustrating, hard to get mad at people not gging after losing to this imbalanced Scenario spam while still having solid engines crap.
 
Simple, if you are constantly using a T3 or self made deck b/c its fun but you keep running into T2 NG cheese the fun ends. The only way to win is to either join em or switch to a higher tier deck that may or may not not be fun to use. The issue is choice. GWENT gives players limited options because iunno they refuse to balance some things? If I want to clime the ladder improve my MMR or win more I'm FORCED to use a better leader, faction, T1 deck.
 

LoR design will take players into a longer journey to the meta discovery.

I'm sure there are, mathematically, more possible combinations than Gwent just by the fact that you can pick two factions and have 3 copies of each card in the deck.

But even having that design, i'm gold 2 and my bro is plat 4, and we can already recognize 4/5 decks we encounter. And not only in Ranked...

Putting it short for you, one more time, it's not all on the game design. The example you bringed is enough evidence of it.

Internet and media, game industry, player mood etc... are also encouraging factors for the efficency playstyle.

Yet at the end, is on the player choice.

Won't keep discussing this anymore.
 
LoR design will take players into a longer journey to the meta discovery.

I'm sure there are, mathematically, more possible combinations than Gwent just by the fact that you can pick two factions and have 3 copies of each card in the deck.

But even having that design, i'm gold 2 and my bro is plat 4, and we can already recognize 4/5 decks we encounter. And not only in Ranked...

Putting it short for you, one more time, it's not all on the game design. The example you bringed is enough evidence of it.

Internet and media, game industry, player mood etc... are also encouraging factors for the efficency playstyle.

Yet at the end, is on the player choice.

Won't keep discussing this anymore.
Player choice has nothing to do with how many decks are competitively viable. There are a ton of viable choices in LoR.
Post automatically merged:

Simple, if you are constantly using a T3 or self made deck b/c its fun but you keep running into T2 NG cheese the fun ends. The only way to win is to either join em or switch to a higher tier deck that may or may not not be fun to use. The issue is choice. GWENT gives players limited options because iunno they refuse to balance some things? If I want to clime the ladder improve my MMR or win more I'm FORCED to use a better leader, faction, T1 deck.
Bingo
 
I'm probably a bit late with this.

I was a casual player, didn't take the game too seriously and certainly wasn't going to win any tournaments. But I really like making my own decks, the big problem I had with the game is as others have mentioned, seeing a tidal wave of the same netdecks over and over. Killed any incentive to be different and make my own deck knowing that it had almost zero chance. I didn't want gwent to be a cycle of the same few decks dominating the game every month.
And I understand people want to win, that's fine, its natural, it is a game after all. But would be nice if more players didn't focus so much on net decks every month and we saw more variety. I think that lack of variety and incentive to create unique decks is what drives players away or doesn't entice casual players like me to get back into the game.

But I was just a casual player, so I guess the game probably isn't meant for me anyway.
 
I'm probably a bit late with this.

I was a casual player, didn't take the game too seriously and certainly wasn't going to win any tournaments. But I really like making my own decks, the big problem I had with the game is as others have mentioned, seeing a tidal wave of the same netdecks over and over. Killed any incentive to be different and make my own deck knowing that it had almost zero chance. I didn't want gwent to be a cycle of the same few decks dominating the game every month.
And I understand people want to win, that's fine, its natural, it is a game after all. But would be nice if more players didn't focus so much on net decks every month and we saw more variety. I think that lack of variety and incentive to create unique decks is what drives players away or doesn't entice casual players like me to get back into the game.

But I was just a casual player, so I guess the game probably isn't meant for me anyway.

Hi!

I'm wondering why you don't use seasonal mode for trying those decks.

I find it lots of fun
 
Hi!

I'm wondering why you don't use seasonal mode for trying those decks.

I find it lots of fun

His main issue is that he faces the same decks over and over. And I don't see how playing seasonal mode would be of much difference, since in 6-7/10 seasonal games you will encounter people playing the same NG poison or NR boost (at least that's my experience, and I play almost only seasonal mode). The decks can differ slightly, but they're basically built around the same concept.
 
Unfortunately I found the same problem in seasonal mode.

I see. I usually am able to get more things going on seasonal.

However, I'm fairly new and don't have big collection so I guess it's just novelty, in my case.

Too bad there is nothing we can do to help.
 
Top Bottom