Balancing ideas

[Guest 4650418]

Dear Developers of Gwent,

I have some ideas for making the game mechanics of Gwent more balanced - it involves revising existing cards' abilities/effects to allow for more balanced gameplay between factions. The biggest issue with the current game is its lopsided favoritism of certain factions due to the inherent nature of specific cards and leader abilities which allow for better field swarming and spawning, and/or which introduce leader-locking, hand-locking, and hand/deck buffing, thereby undermining the balance of play unilaterally (think playing Northern Realms vs. Nilfgaard's "Cultists" with its "Prophet"...the game is practically un-winnable in just about every situation due to NR's reliance on Orders, making play restrictive and unsatisfying for many NR players). Instead of focusing on introducing new cards to re-establish game balance, it would be far more cost- and time-efficient to simply edit the card descriptions of each faction's 1-12 power unit cards (and a couple Special cards) to ensure each faction has the following:

1. A 1-power/12-provision round-winning point-swing unit (deck limit of 1 - think "Geralt of Rivia", except instead of limiting its ability to destroying another card of 9+ power, it just destroys another unit card, period, or gains +3 power for every card on the opponent's field with the additional ability of gaining Immunity and Veil if the boosted amount is more than 12 - that way, it doesn't end up being a brick during play, and/or can counter a field-swarm if you end up with a bad hand with no swarming capability - it also cannot be countered by a simple 4-5 provision reset card if the boosted amount is over 12, making it viable for play - the caveats would be that it can't be used to destroy artifacts, locations, or scenarios, and that it cannot gain or benefit from any additional statuses...it would be a good idea to remove "Immunity" as a status for all other cards in the game to be safe),

2. A 4-power/4-provision unit (deck limit of 2) which boosts one other unit of the same faction by 3 points (2 is too little, and boosts of 4+ power often come at the cost of the card's provision level being significantly higher, restricting deck building options for players...it's best to make things simple by having a low-cost unit of 4-power having the ability to boost an ally of the same faction by 3 - enough to ensure the survival of a card in most cases, but not enough that it gives a completely unfair advantage, and the boost cannot be used on Neutral cards, restricting the benefits to faction-friendly units),

3. An 8-power/8-provision unit (deck limit of 1) which allows the user to draw one card from the deck in exchange for discarding a card from hand (this helps with players who end up with a weak hand during a round, but ensures they get enough points from the play to justify having the card in deck - unlike the "Traveling Merchant", which is too weak power-wise to justify in most cases, and unlike other similar cards which grant the opponent the ability to draw a card at the same time, thereby negating the advantage - think "Thaler" in NR),

4. A 3-power/4-provision unit (deck limit of 2) with a Deploy ability to spawn a copy of itself onto the field which has an Order to repeat the Deploy ability once per turn and to Infuse subsequent copies with the same Order (this helps players to set up for a field-swarm, gaining an immediate +6 points on their side of the board, but also gives their opponent time to respond before they can activate the first Order ability - other cards which rely on boosts or deploy abilities to activate a field swarm are either too expensive to succeed or too fast for opponents to react to in most situations, making them inherently unfair - in addition, the unit's limited power of 3 means that even if the entire row is filled with spawned units, the total amount is not enough to guarantee a Round win - with that said...in order to make this viable, the game's "Zeal" mechanic should be done away with completely in favor of "Deploy" and "Order"....Zeal cards are currently too expensive provision-wise to justify playing for some play styles, and practically no different from Deploy in most cases. This applies to relevant leader abilities, as well. Zeal would be an unfair mechanic to retain with this unit. Every faction should have the potential to swarm the field, but that doesn't mean one faction should have more of an advantage over another - that would defeat the whole purpose),

5. A 6-provision Special card (deck limit of 1) that Purifies an enemy unit and Damages it by 7 (this will help with shutting down enemy field swarms and dealing with boosted units with dangerous abilities),

6. Limit ALL factions' leader ability options to the following: a.) Boost a unit by 1 (Cooldown: 1), b.) Boost a unit by 6, c.) Lock an enemy unit, d.) Spawn a 1-power Token per Round and give it Doomed, e.) Damage a unit by 1 (Cooldown: 1), and f.) Damage a unit by 6. (There is absolutely no justifiable reason to have leaders that can lock an opponent's hand and/or leader ability, boost the units in your own hand/deck, interfere with an opponent's deck, or that can instigate an unbeatable field-swarm that an opponent simply cannot respond to - these mechanics are inherently unfair and need to be done away with once and for all.)

7. A 5-power/5-provision unit with a Deploy ability to Damage an enemy unit by 4 (this will help players to keep field swarms in check, as well as counter boost strategies that rely heavily on stacking up tall units. To be frank, units that only do 2 damage are practically worthless in today's meta, and units that do 3 damage are still too restrictive due to their high provision costs. Having a 5-provision card that can do 4 points of damage is ideal for most play styles in today's Gwent.)

8. Restrict ALL deck provision limits to 162.

9. Reduce the provision cost of all Scenarios to 12.

and, finally...

10. Give every current Gwent player 800 meteorite powder for the inconvenience of dealing with a broken game for the past two years. LOL

I know this was a long post, so thanks for reading - despite all my criticisms of the game, I still think Gwent is the most awesome card game out there. Keep it up, you awesome OG's of Gwent!

 

[DRK3]

10. Give every current Gwent player 800 meteorite powder for the inconvenience of dealing with a broken game for the past two years. LOL

Congratulations, that's the only remark i agree with on your post. (in fact, i would argue its been broken for over 2 years)

The whole problem of your suggestions is they are an attempt to homogenize the game and kill the remaining faction identy that still exists.

That is not the correct way to balance - it may prove to be effective, but it would make Gwent incredibly boring, where every faction is able to do the exact same, so it doesnt matter which one you choose, it would be just aesthetical.

Especially this year, where we've had two major instances of neutral domination, which makes the meta all the same, different factions running incredibly similar decks, based on basic pointslam, and the morale of the playerbase decreases dangerously: when forgotten treasures card drop was released and brought with it the Aerondight/ Golden Nekker meta, and right now, with Renfri decks, its going the same path.

 

[DolphPingus]

10. Give every current Gwent player 800 meteorite powder for the inconvenience of dealing with a broken game for the past two years. LOL

I agree on this one

Especially this year, where we've had two major instances of neutral domination, which makes the meta all the same, different factions running incredibly similar decks, based on basic pointslam, and the morale of the playerbase decreases dangerously: when forgotten treasures card drop was released and brought with it the Aerondight/ Golden Nekker meta, and right now, with Renfri decks, its going the same path.

Same mistakes, over and over. They are not even trying to hide

 

[Guest 4650418]

Congratulations, that's the only remark i agree with on your post. (in fact, i would argue its been broken for over 2 years)

The whole problem of your suggestions is they are an attempt to homogenize the game and kill the remaining faction identy that still exists.

That is not the correct way to balance - it may prove to be effective, but it would make Gwent incredibly boring, where every faction is able to do the exact same, so it doesnt matter which one you choose, it would be just aesthetical.

Especially this year, where we've had two major instances of neutral domination, which makes the meta all the same, different factions running incredibly similar decks, based on basic pointslam, and the morale of the playerbase decreases dangerously: when forgotten treasures card drop was released and brought with it the Aerondight/ Golden Nekker meta, and right now, with Renfri decks, its going the same path.

I can see your point, but most players choose their factions based on the aesthetics in the first place - cards will always have more value to players when they can resonate with them in some way. In other words, the aesthetics ARE the identity. Just look at poker cards - people buy hundreds of decks of the damn things, even though they're all fundamentally the same cards, just because the designs are unique in each deck. The same cards can also be played in different ways - Black Jack, King's Corners, Texas Hold 'Em, Solitaire, etc. - which is why Gwent feels so off right now. There are too many Games being played within the same "Game" - it's like Black Jack vs. Solitaire, or Texas Hold 'Em vs. King's Corners - it's fundamentally broken and incompatible. Play one faction, and you're guaranteed to lose against another when played by an opponent of the same skill level.

Consider this: Not everyone wants to play the same faction - but the current game only makes a few truly viable if you want to go pro, which is why most people get so frustrated with it and burn out after a few weeks of being crushed by opponents whose decks are full of broken cards from factions they personally dislike or despise.

How are you supposed to make the game fun for the player base by showing favoritism for certain factions? If one faction can lock every unit in your deck, in your hand, and on your field (thereby nullifying any and all advantages afforded you by your own cards' abilities), or if it can boost everything in its own deck, hand, and field (thereby guaranteeing a win, based on point value alone), or if it can deliver obscene amounts of damage with low-cost cards vs. your own high-cost cards of the same ability....how is that fair? Where is the competition when the game was over before it started? If individual card abilities and specific factions are all that matter, then no wonder people keep playing neutral decks for point slams - how else are they supposed to actually WIN a game?

At least in Poker games, there is the element of chance - the draw. But Gwent 10.7? It's like this: My deck has 4 kings, 4 queens, 4 jacks, and 4 aces...but your deck has 7 kings, 7 queens, 7 jacks, and 2 aces - oh, and you get to draw an extra card at the end of each round, because reasons...you will always draw a higher hand than me. It's not a game at that point - it's just bullying.

When a game ceases to be fun, it ceases to exist. At some point, the player base will decide whether Gwent continues to be worth their time and money, or not. If only certain factions can have OP abilities that guarantee Round wins no matter what the opponent plays, then at some point everyone will homogenize anyways and play the same faction with the same cards and the same leader abilities - or else simply leave the game - because there won't be any other fair way to play. Complaining about Golden Nekker and Renfri decks only emphasizes the point - people will only play if they earnestly believe they have a chance of winning. When victory is so hopelessly beyond their reach because of a game's imbalance, they just end up leaving and playing something else.

I think Gwent has some awesome mechanics and art styles, but the disparity in play will only continue to break the game - patches and card drops be damned. "Homogeny" is just another word for "balance" - it's only boring if you lack the acumen to bluff and outplay your opponent...and isn't that the whole point? To prove your intuition and skills are superior? Why else would seeing the "Victory" banner feel so good in the end?

If Gwent drops the broken mechanics from the game, and adopts a more homogenous playbook with its already unique and highly artistic/descriptive cards, it will be far more fun and interesting to play. Otherwise, it will only continue to cycle through players until its player base eventually shrinks to the point that maintaining the game is no longer profitable for the company - at which point, it will cease to be. I don't think any of us wants to see that happen - so for the good of Gwent, why not balance things out by revising a few card effects and leader abilities to ensure each faction has a fair chance at winning a Round?

Even if it means nuking some cards from the game, wouldn't that be better than watching the entire game fall into ruin? I would rather pay money to play a game I know I have a 50/50 chance of winning every time, with new versions of cards with the same abilities in new and unique presentations, than continue paying more and more just to guarantee one more win in a game whose rules keep changing to my opponent's advantage each time, with a cardpool so ridiculously diverse in its abilities that forming a simple deck is a chore, and forming a deck that can actually win is a weeks-long grind...and not guaranteed to survive the next patch.

I don't know how many times we've all screamed "BS!" at our screens because of some broken card that completely flipped a Round in favor of our opponent when we fought tooth-and-nail to win, and by rights (and point value) should have. When a game isn't fair, it's not a game - it's a sinkhole of despair, trapping those who dare to step into it. I don't want Gwent to be that sinkhole - and neither do you.

 

[quintivarium]

Dear Developers of Gwent,

I have some ideas for making the game mechanics of Gwent more balanced - it involves revising existing cards' abilities/effects to allow for more balanced gameplay between factions. The biggest issue with the current game is its lopsided favoritism of certain factions

While I appreciate your concern for the success of Gwent and thought as to how to improve the game, I find myself opposed to every idea expressed. Rather than detailing my issues with every suggestion, let me focus on four reasons I do not like your general approach.

1. It misses the point on the real problems with the current game. Favoritism of certain factions is NOT an issue (although it may circle around one of the issues). I do not believe the developers play favorites with the factions. In the two and a half years I have played, every faction was on top at some point — and every faction was on the bottom. Moreover, even when one faction is favored in a matchup, at top levels, the balance is usually very delicate. And because advancement at pro-level is based upon top four factions, one unbalanced faction does not totally eliminate all others. By failing to focus on the precise problem, your “solution” misses the mark. I do think Gwent currently suffers from becoming stale due to too little variety in decks and how they are played — related to, but not the same as imbalanced factions. I also think it suffers from too many matches being determined purely by luck rather than quality of play. Finally it suffers from a clunky, buggy interface that renders certain modes (and even some cards) virtually unplayable on some platforms. Your reforms worsen the second, and don’t address the third.
2. As DRK argued, you make all factions very homogeneous. Instead of increasing variability, this would reduce it. Instead of frequently facing the same 4 to 7 decks that are at any point in time at the top, a player will face only one deck (with 6 different sets of names and pictures) because it is the only deck allowed.
3. Your proposal makes the game even more luck dependent than it already is. You propose to give each faction one high provision, “round winning” card. What will happen when your opponent draws that card and you don’t? You propose cards to specifically generate swarm, together with different cards to specifically counter them. What happens when one player draws the threat and the other fails to draw the answer? Worsening the already excessively binary nature of the game will kill it.
4. I believe your suggestions will reduce the need for, and even the possibility of player ingenuity by having specifically designed answers to specifically constructed threats. This reduces the variety in how the game is played. To me, figuring out how to deal with cards and strategies when I don’t have a perfect answer (or when perfect answers don’t exist) is the best part of the game.

I don’t expect these arguments to convince you; different people see the game in different ways. I can say that if these changes were implemented, I would quit the next day. And I don’t think I would be alone in that reaction.

 

[saodhar]

It's so sweet that people still think the devs care about balance.

 

[SharkoIogist]

It seems like you should play a game like chess, where the two sides have identical options

 

[Guest 4650418]

While I appreciate your concern for the success of Gwent and thought as to how to improve the game, I find myself opposed to every idea expressed. Rather than detailing my issues with every suggestion, let me focus on four reasons I do not like your general approach.

1. It misses the point on the real problems with the current game. Favoritism of certain factions is NOT an issue (although it may circle around one of the issues). I do not believe the developers play favorites with the factions. In the two and a half years I have played, every faction was on top at some point — and every faction was on the bottom. Moreover, even when one faction is favored in a matchup, at top levels, the balance is usually very delicate. And because advancement at pro-level is based upon top four factions, one unbalanced faction does not totally eliminate all others. By failing to focus on the precise problem, your “solution” misses the mark. I do think Gwent currently suffers from becoming stale due to too little variety in decks and how they are played — related to, but not the same as imbalanced factions. I also think it suffers from too many matches being determined purely by luck rather than quality of play. Finally it suffers from a clunky, buggy interface that renders certain modes (and even some cards) virtually unplayable on some platforms. Your reforms worsen the second, and don’t address the third.
2. As DRK argued, you make all factions very homogeneous. Instead of increasing variability, this would reduce it. Instead of frequently facing the same 4 to 7 decks that are at any point in time at the top, a player will face only one deck (with 6 different sets of names and pictures) because it is the only deck allowed.
3. Your proposal makes the game even more luck dependent than it already is. You propose to give each faction one high provision, “round winning” card. What will happen when your opponent draws that card and you don’t? You propose cards to specifically generate swarm, together with different cards to specifically counter them. What happens when one player draws the threat and the other fails to draw the answer? Worsening the already excessively binary nature of the game will kill it.
4. I believe your suggestions will reduce the need for, and even the possibility of player ingenuity by having specifically designed answers to specifically constructed threats. This reduces the variety in how the game is played. To me, figuring out how to deal with cards and strategies when I don’t have a perfect answer (or when perfect answers don’t exist) is the best part of the game.

I don’t expect these arguments to convince you; different people see the game in different ways. I can say that if these changes were implemented, I would quit the next day. And I don’t think I would be alone in that reaction.

I see...some very valid points there. I suppose my thought process has revolved primarily around equalizing the potential of each faction in a matchup rather than the variety of possibilities for interactions on the field...that would limit the experience somewhat, in hindsight. Still, I have to wonder - if the game didn't have "one-for-all" cards (like Renfri) or revived spawn swarms (like Sir Scratch-a-Lot) that could basically win the match on their own, would the game be better off? Is it the mechanics of the game itself, or a few broken cards, that have caused Gwent to feel so unbalanced? Then again...if variety of interaction is all that matters, and the thrill of finally crafting those few "superpower cards" is all people care about, does balance matter at all in the end - even to the players? I guess my understanding of "balance" is different from those who view fairness as an inhibitor to fun - variety is great and all, but if you can't win, what's the point?

I will agree with you on the fact my original approach was wrong - I relied on the existing cardpool to try and come up with those ideas for cards. That was my bad. Perhaps removing certain mechanics (such as Immunity), as well as nerfing some card effects and leader abilities would be the better approach? Maybe upping the damage of certain special cards and low-provision units to allow players better chances at answering threats? It feels like a lot of cards just don't have the power to answer threats that will inevitably be used by your opponent to win the match - that, or their provision cost is so high that including them in your build causes the rest of your deck to be weak. Even then, if the opponent's threat has Immunity, then you can't even target it in the first place - and if they use something like Nilfgaard's ability to lock your hand, you can't answer it at all. It just feels so unfair to spend so much time, money, and energy building a deck with good synergy and power, only to watch it fail miserably against an opponent with 2-3 OP cards and an OP leader ability that practically guarantee they'll win 2 of the 3 Rounds. Being forced to play with certain factions in order to win at any given time is wrong. Even if variety can be exciting, there have to be limits.

Sorry if any of my previous commentary came off as pedantic - I'm honestly just hoping to help improve the game. I'm not a developer or anything, so as far as the technical issues go, that stuff is beyond me. I'm just focused on the gameplay itself as a common player.

Do you have any ideas on how best to balance things from a gameplay perspective?

 

[Veleslava]

Hello,

I have a few suggestions for rebalance of scoia'tael's traps:

1. Fire trap. Let's compare it to alzure's thunder. Both deal 5 damage, BUT! Alzure's thunder is targeted and give u much more control over the field. The fire trap has more random effect and is often less valuable as the oponent prevents its trigegring by cards with less value. I think it would be fair to make it dealing 6 damage and 4, when used by the player. 4 damage is currently a standard for neutral cards for 4/5 provision, so the fire trap would be balanced in that sence.

2. Crushing trap. Let's compare it to Lacerate. Both are 6 provison and deal 2 damage to all minions in a row, BUT! The Lacerate, alike the alzure's thunder, has instant effect, when used. For the crushing trap, I have to wait one more turn to get the same effect, when it can become irrelevant for me. Also random effect, when the opponent has the same number of minions in both rows, I never know in which row it is going to be triggered. I think this card should cost maximum 5 provision without changing the mechanics/damage to make balanced.

I really want that the bronze traps will be fixed and strengthened at least in this way, because currently they are super weak in comparison to all other trends (in 10.9 patch there are bronze cards with instant 10 value). I mean, Iorveth's gambit (12 provision!) and Eldain (10 provision) are simply not strong enough to make a core of a "trap deck" due to the weak broze traps. In general, I expect the bronze neutral cards 0.5 value less powerfull as the equivalent fraction cards, but this is not a case for traps as I demonstrated in above comparisons. I very hope this message will be seen and taken into consideration. Happy, to see your critics regarding these topic.

 

[Rychu_taxi_driver]

Hello,

I have a few suggestions for rebalance of scoia'tael's traps:

1. Fire trap. Let's compare it to alzure's thunder. Both deal 5 damage, BUT! Alzure's thunder is targeted and give u much more control over the field. The fire trap has more random effect and is often less valuable as the oponent prevents its trigegring by cards with less value. I think it would be fair to make it dealing 6 damage and 4, when used by the player. 4 damage is currently a standard for neutral cards for 4/5 provision, so the fire trap would be balanced in that sence.

2. Crushing trap. Let's compare it to Lacerate. Both are 6 provison and deal 2 damage to all minions in a row, BUT! The Lacerate, alike the alzure's thunder, has instant effect, when used. For the crushing trap, I have to wait one more turn to get the same effect, when it can become irrelevant for me. Also random effect, when the opponent has the same number of minions in both rows, I never know in which row it is going to be triggered. I think this card should cost maximum 5 provision without changing the mechanics/damage to make balanced.

I really want that the bronze traps will be fixed and strengthened at least in this way, because currently they are super weak in comparison to all other trends (in 10.9 patch there are bronze cards with instant 10 value). I mean, Iorveth's gambit (12 provision!) and Eldain (10 provision) are simply not strong enough to make a core of a "trap deck" due to the weak broze traps. In general, I expect the bronze neutral cards 0.5 value less powerfull as the equivalent fraction cards, but this is not a case for traps as I demonstrated in above comparisons. I very hope this message will be seen and taken into consideration. Happy, to see your critics regarding these topic.

Paradoxically traps that You mentioned are fine as they are. Only lizard trap and mahakam Horn dont fit to trap deck ans both should be reworkd and boost rework of both iorweth cards (tactic and unit) will be enough because both dont serve its purpouse - you dont need play two traps at once for 12 provinsion, its pointless, and becquse iorweth is not spawn8ng new trap hattoti is just better than him. So as a "face" of traps iorweth should be boosted. and his tactic too. But boosting traps is a tricky thing - lets hope the boost wont be too strong, because even as a traps player I dont want traps to became meta again - unless artifact removals will be back in game