Gwent Overview (& Rant) 2022

[DRK3]

Hello forum users / gwent players.

-I started to jest a few years ago that i make a huge post on what's wrong with Gwent anually, but the joke slowly became reality... And here we are!

-I considered reusing my thread of last year's, or one of the similar threads of the same subject, but ultimately decided this warranted a new thread.

-I wanted to write this for 2-3 weeks, but i've kept delaying it because of its overwhelming scope. Still, i think what i am about to address are problems that are deeply ingrained in Gwent's core by now, so the timing of the post is irrelevant, because the content itself wont lose relevance.

-To blabber and accuse the Gwent dev team of things that have been said a thousand times before would be a waste of time (regardless of being true or not). But im confident that what ive got to say now its new and may bring a new light to these discussions. Whether i am right or wrong, i will leave up for discussion.

TYPE OF PLAYERS

Putting all Gwent players in just 2 "boxes" may be reductive, but its a simplification that should help a lot in explaining my point.
Lets say there's the 'Type A' player and 'Type B' player in Gwent.
The A player is the type that creates its own decks, likes to explore different strategies and learning and understanding the game is more important than winning.
The B player is the one that never bothered to fiddle with the deckbuilder, out of fear, patience or "lack of time", and netdecks for each meta.
What happens when these 2 types of players clash?

SNOWBALL EFFECT

The following theory is nothing new, im just applying it to Gwent, or more specifically, its playerbase.
Lets say at some point in Gwent's lifetime, the ratio of type A and type B players were 50-50. Personally, this would not be the ideal scenario for me, i would have 100% of type A players and eradicate the type B... but im biased, and that is not the point. At 50-50, the playerbase would be in a sustainable state, and the vast majority of both types of players could easily find enjoyment in the game...

Now im no longer speaking hypothetically, this is what happened throughout the years (obvious to anyone paying attention to player's response in "Gwent places"): expansions were released in Gwent, with an undeniable amount of powercreep and an arguable amount of toxic and unfair cards and strategies. With each of these expansions, there was a rush of new players coming in, lured by the new content, but also a portion of the existing playerbase leaving the game, due to frustration with the game's gameplay state. And guess what? These were all Type A players.

More and more expansions. The 50-50 became 40(A)-60(B) then 30-70, and so on...
This is the snowball effect - the number of netdeckers didnt necessarily increase, but the number of "homebrewers" definitely decreased a lot, as they left the game in frustration that all they faced were netdeckers that didnt allow original deckbuilding to flourish, and they couldnt find other players like them.

This problematic effect isnt linear, but exponential - today leaves one, tomorrow 2, then 4... next thing you know, the number is in the thousands. And the "snowball" doesnt increase just in size, but in momentum. Which means as it progresses, it gets harder to stop, to a point where even if the developers did a 180 in their direction of the game, it might be too late to fix this issue anyway. As a pessimist, i do believe we're already way past that point.

TWISTING THE NARRATIVE

This topic may seem to be more critical of the actual Gwent players than of the Gwent team... its not.
They played a major role in shaping up the playerbase into what it is now, by the direction they chose for the game. One of the most evident points is the focus on appealing to new players and disregard the existing ones. Player retention is attempted through Journeys and cosmetics, rather than quality of gameplay... but i digress.

There are other major differences between Type A and B players, which help a lot in seeing the big picture here:
Type A players are very vocal, and active online. If you're reading this, there's already a very strong chance you're a Type A player.
B players are more casual - they just want to play the game, maybe occasionally see a streamer (which are probably the biggest source of netdecking currently), but dont want to engage with the community, for time reasons, and understandably to avoid conflicts.

Of course the dev team will like the Type B players more. They dont complain, they're always OK with the game, sometimes even make a praise post in a sea of criticism, and they maybe more inclined to spend money on the game to get an edge. They also help descredit Type A players, claiming those "complain all the time" - which maybe true, but it doesnt make the complaints any less valid!
These players are actually the vast majority of the current playerbase, but because they arent active online, it may not seem this way. Take this into account the next time you see 90+% of posts in this forum/reddit complaining about an aspect of Gwent and yet it is disregarded or a solution delayed by the team in charge of the game.

Even with constructive criticism, the vocal players - the ones left (re-check the snowball effect section) - have become the villains to the devs because we are not supporting their efforts blindly, which is ironic because its precisely those players that care more about Gwent and are worried with its state in the long term and would like to see it improve rather than just seeing it as another game and what it can offer to said player, and if not enough, he will simply move on to another game without any sort of personal attachment.

-----------------------------------------------

As always, feel free to share your opinions on these, even if you strongly disagree, as long as you back it up with solid arguments.

Post automatically merged: Aug 16, 2022

PS - if you're wondering how can even there be any 'Type A' players left?
There's at least two sub-types:

-Mine, the veterans who became addicted to the game, and cant drop it now, even when they disliked it. This is only possible because you get "hooked" when the the game is good in your eyes, but then after it gets progressively worse, you're already too deep in it.

-The saints, with neverending patience for BS. Sorry, i dont know how else to describe them. These are overwhelmingly positive people that can endure a legion of facing metadecks even when they dont like it, but somehow are still able to remain calm and in a healthy relation with Gwent. Still there were a few streamers and creators we all thought were like these but even they've had enough and quit it in the last year or so.

 

[sfruzz]

I do agree that the playerbase of Gwent has changed over the course of the years.

Back in the days there were more streamers, tournaments and esport teams. Gwent used to attract competitive players. The selling point of the game was ability and not luck is the decide the outcome of the game. There was a lot of hype around the game. In 2022 many players with esport ambitions or players dreaming of making a job out of their hobby have probably left due to a (perceived) lack of opportunity.

How has this change in the playerbase affected the ladder experience?

Well, based on the assumption that streamers help netdeckers and that competitive players like to netdeck, one could assume that netdecking has decreased. This is not the case. I suspect that most people do not netdeck as much as it is assumed. Most of the players are not actively looking online for a deck that will give them an edge.

In my opinion, players tend to copy the deck of their opponents. At least, this is what I do. If I lose, but I found the game interesting, I will try out the deck of my opponent (guessing the cards that weren't played). Decks are copied. Decks that are successful are copied more often. This is kind of a natural selection.
"In Gwent nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is copied" said once Antoine Lavoisier.

I will add my own 2022 rant to the discussion:
- As a Gwent player I was looking to the project Golden Nekker as a great source of content for Gwent. The fact that they published this content outside Gwent for me was a big disappointment. I think that Gwent remains the best online cardgame out there, but it lacks fresh content. This is not a problem for me as a player. I do take breaks from the game from time to time. However, for content creators / streamers I think this is a big problem. In the game-ecosystem the less content, the less streamers, which again leads to less content.
For the amount of effort the Devs decided to put in Gwent Rogue Mage, I do wonder, which improvement we could have had in Gwent.

 

[MasterLoki]

Extreme good points and logic.

As a player I like the dynamics, the fun of the archetypes, sometimes I saw myself stuck in a tentative to make a deck work just because I like the char or the class (you will see that my profile is hard tendentious for some classes, really trying to work on that).

I remember when I find Gwent, was a long time (since beta) 'other card game' player (a similar name of one of the Witcher3 DLCs) and was tired of 2 things:

(A) Deckbuild was in a strange state, you had many cards but the majority were unplayable. Even if you like or want to have fun, use this or that, there is a 'logic wall'. So even if you try do be more diverse there was not much ways
(B) Of course, between the human behavior and with the item above, netdeck was off the charts. I needed LITERALLY to see the hero and the first card (worst case scenario , the second) to know exactly all the cards in the deck, all the plays, possibilities and already know the winner (easy 95% or more of the time)

Why the long introduction?

Playing Witcher 3, i saw the in-game Gwent, come to see the off-game one and "WOW!!!". I could create some crazy things , some solids, some pure meme and actually have chance of winning (some more , some less). Even if I play for the fun, the test, the 'deck science' , and I'll not be a hypocrite, wining some times matters, or even having a chance, or close calls. Insta-Addicted !

I have just about 820h (I imagine not so much compare to you guys) but the game is making me fell again the (B) feeling. Even after a long ... long pause, was necessary really little time to already figure out the netdecks and know all about how the game will flow. That's sad. BUT there is still some happy encounters with others A-Type players, that area really exciting and fun, sometime just for playing against something different and/or that make some surprise plays, even when I lost (S2 for each of you ).

Also there is still the many deckbuild options (some really abandoned ( #makeDevoltionGreatAgain ), now for exemple I'm having fun trying a working 'Hale Family Bounty' and as last season with my "Shupe Harmony" I make the objetive to polish a deck that I think with a fun mechanic and chars make Pro Rank at least.

So this things, in addition with so much I really like this game, keep me here and trying. Unfortunately with a bigger number of pauses every cicle to try just escape of a 'rage stress abandon'.

I don't have here a plausible suggestion on how to improve or adjust, like I read you guys doing very often in the forum (specially he veterans and seniors) but I'm really maintaining hopes and cheering for things like this thread ( a healthy discussion) be taking serious by the team.

(Sorry for the English)

 

[betraymechino]

This is the second thread of yours I want really to reply and keep forgetting to (the first being about beta vs post-HC, to which I will reply someday). Overall, it's an interesting read, but that's not surprising when it comes to your posts. Yet, while I agree with some points, I strongly disagree with some others. It seems to me that you correctly identify a problem, but then continue it with some examples and conclusions.

I’m fairly sure this comment will turn out to be a barely coherent rambling, but it’s past 1am and I rather want to leave a comment I can edit later a dozen times, than to forget replying at all. I hope you’ll be able to read through that


1. Type of players

While you give an explanation for the (over)simplification of the playerbase, I don't believe that separation is correct. Even more, because of that separation, some arguments and conclusions turn incorrect.
You divide players into two categories: the deckbuilders and the netdeckers. Ones with a deeper understanding of the game and the others - simple players of decks. I find a problem with that because, I don't see myself fitting any of these two. Last time I build any own decks would be probably over a year ago. And even then, it was mostly taking someone else's decks and adapting it to my preferences. I play these decks till this day (with some further changes) and beside them, I play netdecks. The thing is, I don't play decks that "flavour of the season". I play decks that I find interesting, rarely even tier 3. I want to say I play for fun, not caring much about hitting pro, even less caring about top 500. I want to say, but I don't know if I can anymore. But about that later.

Now, you might be tempted to put me in the first category, but I wouldn't agree with that, because (as mentioned above) I rarely build decks, and also because we probably have a different view on what's fun in Gwent. I consider myself a "control player". The decks I enjoy the most, are the ones that disrupt opponent's gameplay in the most brutal and confrontational way. Be it specials ST (not to confuse with spell'tael) and weather MO in closed beta, quadruple Scorch in open beta, no-unit decks in HC and finally mill, clog and traps later on. And to be clear, I also enjoy playing against these deck
There's nothing I dislike more than what I would call a solitaire gameplay, where each player stick to their side and the game is won by who plays the more cheese deck. And forgive me if I'm oversimplifying now, but I get the feeling that's what you mean by "exploring different strategies and learning and understanding the game".

Anyway, to get to the point...

I don't think the boxes you made are correct. In my opinion the better to divide player on the "tryharders" and "casuals", or to put in less condescending words - ranked players and those that don't care so much for winning. In both of these groups there are netdeckers and people creating own decks. The difference is the goal not the process. And in that sense, I think we can be in the same "box" - players that surely enjoy winning, but more than that want to play the decks we enjoy, even (or especially) if these decks are the "underdogs" (for example, as much as I love mill, I hated the Golden Nekker mill that was meta at some point, few months ago and I didn't want to touch it even for one game).


2. Snowball Effect

Now, if we apply my "two boxes", I can pretty much agree with this part wholly. The "tryhards" make up for bigger and bigger part of the playerbase, while the "casuals" struggle more and more in finding a sense in playing. It's a sad and disappointing process that I don't believe will stop anytime soon.
One point I’d like to make and correct me if I’m wrong, but (maybe judging by the previous thread I wanted to reply to) you seem to suggest that this shift happened with HC. I have to strongly disagree with that. It happened a long time before that, in open beta. It was back then when the devs, willingly and consciously or not started aiming Gwent towards the “tryhard” kind of players. It only became more apparent post-HC, but started a lot earlier.
The lack of other game modes, when they’re added they quickly become abandoned and left as they are. Content that is not directly related to gameplay is most of the time also build around “grinding” that one main mode. Very little to none interest in developing other type of gameplay-related content for Gwent. Sure, there is Rogue Mage, but it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that the devs wanted to separate it from “main” Gwent as much as possible.

In fact, I think that catering to the “ranked-only” players was one of the reason why Thronebreaker failed so much and why Rogue Mage seem to follow this path, if not even worse.

Now, to be fair – I think it’s entirely possible that this course was caused by the lack of resources given by CDPR and the dev team is simply trying to make the best they can with given options.

Yet, it doesn’t change the fact that over the years devs grew a playerbase that is barely interested in anything else than ranked play in the most linear way.



3. Twisting the narrative

This is the point where, because of your definition of A and B players I can't agree with you "at all".
I completely disagree with your Type A players being the most vocal. I'd say on the contrary - it's a section of the "tryhards" that are the most vocal. The ones that have a clear view on how the games are supposed to turn out. "I play this, you play this and there's only one way how this match is supposed to end". The view can differ, be it own idea of how the game should look, or watching a streamer get good results with the deck. And when the match don't end with the way they expect it to end, they get irritated. They saw streamers win with a deck, yet for some reason they can't get the same results, so they blame other cards, that in their mind are the cause of their loss. Or a steamer looses to a card/deck they don't like and blame it on it and others then parrot it.
Those are the most vocal players.
And it's not like the dev team will like this type more. They're more like a necessary evil, because "tryhards" as a whole are the majority of the players.

As for villanizing of the players by the devs. I find it kinda funny, because the most hostility towards players criticizing Gwent comes from other players criticizing the game. A lot of players have this notion that only their complaints are constructive and valid, while others are simply whining and crying. There is a lot of circlejerking in the community and the circlejerks seem to be pretty fluid. One season they're defending the devs and next season they're the ones "whining".


4. PS

Here I agree 100%. I was hooked by KtS and closed beta, I remained hopeful for the future in open beta with the promise of great things to come. For the last two years I remained hopeful with the Golden Nekker coming soon. And yet, still here I am, still finding something to keep me maybe not playing as much as in the past, but at least following.

 

[quintivarium]

This is the second thread of yours I want really to reply and keep forgetting to (the first being about beta vs post-HC, to which I will reply someday). Overall, it's an interesting read, but that's not surprising when it comes to your posts. Yet, while I agree with some points, I strongly disagree with some others. It seems to me that you correctly identify a problem, but then continue it with some examples and conclusions.

I’m fairly sure this comment will turn out to be a barely coherent rambling, but it’s past 1am and I rather want to leave a comment I can edit later a dozen times, than to forget replying at all. I hope you’ll be able to read through that


1. Type of players

While you give an explanation for the (over)simplification of the playerbase, I don't believe that separation is correct. Even more, because of that separation, some arguments and conclusions turn incorrect.
You divide players into two categories: the deckbuilders and the netdeckers. Ones with a deeper understanding of the game and the others - simple players of decks. I find a problem with that because, I don't see myself fitting any of these two. Last time I build any own decks would be probably over a year ago. And even then, it was mostly taking someone else's decks and adapting it to my preferences. I play these decks till this day (with some further changes) and beside them, I play netdecks. The thing is, I don't play decks that "flavour of the season". I play decks that I find interesting, rarely even tier 3. I want to say I play for fun, not caring much about hitting pro, even less caring about top 500. I want to say, but I don't know if I can anymore. But about that later.

Now, you might be tempted to put me in the first category, but I wouldn't agree with that, because (as mentioned above) I rarely build decks, and also because we probably have a different view on what's fun in Gwent. I consider myself a "control player". The decks I enjoy the most, are the ones that disrupt opponent's gameplay in the most brutal and confrontational way. Be it specials ST (not to confuse with spell'tael) and weather MO in closed beta, quadruple Scorch in open beta, no-unit decks in HC and finally mill, clog and traps later on. And to be clear, I also enjoy playing against these deck
There's nothing I dislike more than what I would call a solitaire gameplay, where each player stick to their side and the game is won by who plays the more cheese deck. And forgive me if I'm oversimplifying now, but I get the feeling that's what you mean by "exploring different strategies and learning and understanding the game".

Anyway, to get to the point...

I don't think the boxes you made are correct. In my opinion the better to divide player on the "tryharders" and "casuals", or to put in less condescending words - ranked players and those that don't care so much for winning. In both of these groups there are netdeckers and people creating own decks. The difference is the goal not the process. And in that sense, I think we can be in the same "box" - players that surely enjoy winning, but more than that want to play the decks we enjoy, even (or especially) if these decks are the "underdogs" (for example, as much as I love mill, I hated the Golden Nekker mill that was meta at some point, few months ago and I didn't want to touch it even for one game).

Whenever items (like Gwent Players) are categorized, there are multiple ways to set up the categorization (e.g., you could sort objects by shape, color, size, function, ...) The only real evaluation of the value of a categorization is whether it helps with understanding.

I, too, initially Balked at DRK3's characterization of Gwent players -- probably because I could not visualize myself in either category -- I never netdeck (I want my own creations), but I don't generally enjoy the deck building process in Gwent (I often quit half way through a deck without desire to continue). But as I reflected more upon it, I think DRK3's characterization of players is useful. It enables his observation that the games design direction skews the player base toward one category -- which then becomes self-reinforcing. And this analysis is original, insightful, and , I believe, helpful in moving the game forward.

This does not mean your categorization is incorrect , but it lends itself toward revealing different insights -- and I think both can be helpful.

I would like to propose a categorization with 4 categories: creators (who want to express creativity in the game -- especially through deck building, but also through original strategies); thinkers (who want the game play -- and sometimes deck building -- to be a strategically rich as possible and who want success solely determined by play); competitors (who enjoy facing off against others to see who comes out on top); and thrill-seekers (who want the game exciting and entertaining). There could be other categories I have overlooked, there could be significant subcategories within these, and most players might have tendencies toward more than one category.

My insight is that these different categories of players have different objectives for the game -- and what satisfies one may not satisfy another. For example, creators want all cards to be well-balanced against one another as this maximized the number of potential meaningful interactions. They don't particularly appreciate partitioning of all viable decks into "archetypes" as this restricts creative combinations. They may not like extensive use of consistency cards -- especially if this allows decks to always be played in the same way.

On the other hand, thinkers may very much appreciate a limited meta as that allows them to better predict an opponent's deck, which allows deeper strategic analysis -- playing around opponent cards, optimizing removal, etc. Thinkers are very opposed to RNG of types that determine matches (and value all consistency tools), but likely support RNG of card order which creates new lines of play to discover every game. They are not likely to mind a large pool of unusable cards as long as there is some variety in cards that are used.

Competitors are likely to be very focused on balance between decks (so matches are "fair"), but they may not care is certain cards are significantly better than other cards provided imbalances average out over a deck or over a faction. And they are likely to become very frustrated when any card consistently thwarts their preferred deck or playing style. They don't mind results based upon luck -- as long as their luck balances their opponent's.

Thrill seekers want the matches to be entertaining and exciting. They like the powerful and crazy cards, they like surprises -- unexpected cards that swing a game. They may be more drawn to aesthetics -- artful animations and unique cosmetics. Their ideal balance is for every faction to be equally distinctive and flashy.

It is my perception that the first two categories I listed are the least recognized by developers -- probably because the last two drive the more visible elements of game success: e-sports and purchases. But I could be biased based upon my own game preferences and my proclivity to be a mixture of creator and thinker and my anti-tendency toward the thrill-seeker category.

 

[duracell1955]

In my particular case the development of the game has changed me from a largely 'Type A' player to a largely 'Type B' player.

To elaborate, I've been playing Gwent for more than three years. When I started I made all my own decks, I didn't even consider copying someone elses deck. I evolved my decks based on my gaming experiences. That took me from Rank 30 to Rank 1 (I've never made Pro Rank). During that time the game evolved, from having a couple of hundred cards and a dozen mechanics to several times that number of cards and mechanics. This made it harder for me to construct winning decks, and the more complex the game became the worse I was, until I finally came to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't be playing Gwent any more. I discussed the subject in this forum and one contributor kindly suggested that I look at games posted in the library and online. I did so and found the decks were often much better than I could produce, so I started using them and continue to do so until this day.

This has lengthened the time when I play Gwent, however I miss the early days when it was much more satisfying to compete with my own decks. I doubt that I am alone.

 

[MasterLoki]

I discussed the subject in this forum and one contributor kindly suggested that I look at games posted in the library and online. I did so and found the decks were often much better than I could produce, so I started using them and continue to do so until this day.

This has lengthened the time when I play Gwent, however I miss the early days when it was much more satisfying to compete with my own decks. I doubt that I am alone.

Been there for a while too, but here are the thin line I guess. But as soon as I first felt the 'miss my builds' I jump off the deck library, but I was 'out of practice'.
So I started with modifications of existing decks to my liking, giving me good tips and ways of tweak, polishing (i can't remember now a better word) my deck building again.
And then when I felt comfortable, starting building alone again. Of source I will not be so arrogant to say 'just 100% mine all the time'. I too look good ideas, content, my adversary decks, good posts like the 'daily deck'.... but as a TOOL do harvest better thinking and deck building, not as a 'way of living' like the majority of the player base.

Maybe, not on purpose not with a harms thinking I have sure of that just by reading your post, you prove yourself of the learning curve and became a passenger of a comfort seat... but if there is will, there is hope !

 

[DRK3]

Thank you for all the replies, i wont respond to each individually but i did read all of them so far.

The biggest point of conflict seems to be my categorization of Gwent players into just two types. I admit, it may be a terrible system that generalizes too much and it wouldnt be fit to evaluate the Gwent playerbase, but i stress again - i only used this simple system to prove my main point of the post. Because if i thought of a really well thought classification system, it would take a lot of effort, make an already huge post into impossibly long, and it would also remove focus from the main point.

TL;DR / MAIN POINT: a portion of the Gwent players gradually (and unintentionally) drove out another portion of the playerbase with their playstyle, which gravitates towards certain types of decks: strong, consistent and foolproof, toxic, oppressive, control-heavy, exploiting mechanics that weren't properly balanced, etc.
Any new player that comes into Gwent and that would fit the decreasing minority - of exploring and testing decks and cards for himself - will either feel unwelcome and unpleased with what he found and quickly abandon Gwent or will "join the other side" (because if a veteran already has trouble dealing with meta with non-meta, then a newbie has absolutely no chance and will have a miserable time).

So i ask - don't bother too much with my 'type of players' system, if you dont fit in any or are a mix of both, or coming up with a new system. I mean, you can do it for yourself, it might be a praiseworthy effort but it wont be neccessary for the direction of this discussion.

In my opinion the better to divide player on the "tryharders" and "casuals", or to put in less condescending words - ranked players and those that don't care so much for winning. In both of these groups there are netdeckers and people creating own decks. The difference is the goal not the process.

Actually i've seen both types of those players that fit into my 'Type B' category.
I've faced both very skilled players with a good understanding of the game using netdecks and playing very "seriously", and absolutely awful players doing a ton of mistakes and following a basic guideline they've got from somewhere else, and when the context got into uncharted territory, they have no clue what to do, but still are carried by the strength of the decks they pack.

One of the problems of metadecks is they require little skill or even thinking, to pilot. Which leads to two other points: the skill of a player is wasted on it, a great player plays it in the same way as a terrible player; and it doesnt encourage the bad players to get better.

One point I’d like to make and correct me if I’m wrong, but (maybe judging by the previous thread I wanted to reply to) you seem to suggest that this shift happened with HC. I have to strongly disagree with that. It happened a long time before that, in open beta. It was back then when the devs, willingly and consciously or not started aiming Gwent towards the “tryhard” kind of players. It only became more apparent post-HC, but started a lot earlier.

Maybe so, but the HC launch (late 2018) probably saw the biggest shift in Gwent - and more important to this discussion - its playerbase, with a lot of players coming in and a lot of players leaving for good. That period is like a huge storm, what came before and after is much harder to compare because of those tumultuous times.
Since then the game already changed director 3 times at least, and instead of improving the direction of the game, it had the opposite effect IMO, as the directors kept being allocated to other (more important - i assume) CDPR projects, leaving other staff that was even less prepared for that role.

I completely disagree with your Type A players being the most vocal. I'd say on the contrary - it's a section of the "tryhards" that are the most vocal. The ones that have a clear view on how the games are supposed to turn out. "I play this, you play this and there's only one way how this match is supposed to end". The view can differ, be it own idea of how the game should look, or watching a streamer get good results with the deck. And when the match don't end with the way they expect it to end, they get irritated. They saw streamers win with a deck, yet for some reason they can't get the same results, so they blame other cards, that in their mind are the cause of their loss. Or a steamer looses to a card/deck they don't like and blame it on it and others then parrot it.
Those are the most vocal players.

I agree there is a lot of flaws in the posts and discussions in the "Gwent sites".
Yes, there is a lot of echo chambers, and flock behaviour, especially in streams where users chat live and feel more connected with each other. And there are some awkward opinions and suggestions from naive players that probably should have done a bit more research or testing before posting.

That leads me to a point i forgot to add in this section 'twisting the narrative' - a couple of these wrong or poorly-founded posts are enough for the Gwent team to defend themselves from critics and discredit the general playerbase.
Its unfair, because every player is a beginner at some point in time and has the right to make some mistakes, but if the feedback the dev team gets isn't 100% solid and constructive they can get away by claming "there were opposing voices in the community, and we can't please everyone" and give the bad examples as proof they shouldn't listen to the players everytime, so ultimately they can always ignore what they want, because they don't like it or its too much work.

But overall, i disagree with you, and stand that this 'type A' players are the ones most active in online discussions. Yes, they may lean towards the more 'tryharding' section of that category, but you always see a lot of posts of nerf requests to OP cards, complaints about balance, suggestions and asking for more reworks - these are players that arent happy with the state of the game and want more of the potential of the cardpool to be tapped.

What happens then is the opposite of what happened to the playerbase - these players will drive out - some more politely, others less so - the players who defend the meta or are fans of toxic decks. Maybe you've done it previously, but what happens when you reveal you're a fan of mill or clog on reddit? I bet you were glad you were on the internet and not real life, as insults hurled are less painful than stones...

Post automatically merged: Aug 18, 2022

In my particular case the development of the game has changed me from a largely 'Type A' player to a largely 'Type B' player.

To elaborate, I've been playing Gwent for more than three years. When I started I made all my own decks, I didn't even consider copying someone elses deck. I evolved my decks based on my gaming experiences. That took me from Rank 30 to Rank 1 (I've never made Pro Rank). During that time the game evolved, from having a couple of hundred cards and a dozen mechanics to several times that number of cards and mechanics. This made it harder for me to construct winning decks, and the more complex the game became the worse I was, until I finally came to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't be playing Gwent any more. I discussed the subject in this forum and one contributor kindly suggested that I look at games posted in the library and online. I did so and found the decks were often much better than I could produce, so I started using them and continue to do so until this day.

This has lengthened the time when I play Gwent, however I miss the early days when it was much more satisfying to compete with my own decks. I doubt that I am alone.

I often neglect the new player experience (not claiming that you are one obviously) in my analysis.
This leaves a hint of 'my way is the right way, everyone should do it like me' on my posts, but that's very unfair because like you mentioned - the game, with its ever-increasing cardpool and mechanics, can be overwhelming and leave newcomers with a sense that they dont even know where to begin.

I don't ask anyone to play Gwent as much as me (in fact, you shouldnt ), or that they should learn the game really well to be a great player. Everyone should commit as much time and effort to this game as it brings them the maximum amount of enjoyment from it.

I only wish that everyone at least TRIED. Tried to build a deck of their own, or start by adapting existing ones and progress from that. And if that doesn't work out, maybe leave it for some time, but try again in the future, as the added experience, different meta or just different inspiration at the moment may lead to better results, and own deckbuilding will always lead to more deck diversity collectively.

PS - you can definitely reach pro rank if you want to, its more of a mental barrier than anything else, the players who start Gwent and quickly reach pro rank, it's not because they are aces, it's because they climbed fast enough to dodge this psychological barrier forming in their minds, that is usually built by reading or hearing from others or expectations from other videogames with ranked systems.