CA spy abuse stale meta

+
Can I get a logical and throughtout answer why red coin is allowed to play his CA spy in the first round (and by the extention second if he lost the 1 round)?

That play leaves only 3 options for the blue coin: a) pass and lose round 1 preserving your spy (if you even have one in your hand); b) play 2 cards down ensuring the usage of own spy in round 2 or 3 or c) spy back and pray that you win this round leaving yourself without the sure option to bleed the opponent (you are not guaranteed to get the card back in 2 round as a winner of 1 without a spy if you decided to play that round or opponent has carryover). That being said, CA spy is the only strategic counter play to the carryover (not counting figurines or locks) - and if the opponent spies back that only counter play completely vanishes.

CA spy should only be allowed to be used by the winner of the first round to bleed the opponent in the second round. Answering CA with CA is a complete rubbish. If you answer the CA spy as blue coin by playing your own CA spy you are basically playing card down because you used your only tool to punish the opponent in the 2 round.

Counterspying in 2 round for the loser of 1 round is a risky but solid play - you simply deny the bleeding option to the other side. What was the point of winning the round one then? Yeah, the opponent will start round 3 first but then again he might as well be card up meaning he will get the last play anyway. What changed? It feels that the first round completely lost it's power and importance with CA spies for both sides. There is no reason to win the round 1 anymore, especially if you have a CA spy in your hand. In the vanilla gwent from the Witcher 3 you at least got some kind of gimmick (like getting the card with nothern realms). Why not include that at last? This additional card is as simple as that - winner of the first round gets 1 card back while removing the CA spies from the game completely. Or keep the spies for more strategic plays (especially considering they are bodies on the field - g:igni, letho-regis, scorch blocking, etc). Counterspying is a complete broken and stupid concept.

CA spy should only be allowed to be used by the blue coin. No matter what round. You start the game on blue? You can use your spy, that's fair. Red coin shouldn't be able to answer your spy with thier own spy. You start the second round with a blue coin (meaning you won round 1)? You can use your spy, that's fair, you have the tool to bleed the round, you are also rewarded in a way for winning round 1. You are starting the round 3 on blue coin (meaning you lost round 1 and won round 2)? You can use your spy to deny the last say for another player, that's fair, since points matter much more in the last round and you also played very carefully to not to blow your spy in the first two rounds which can be really tricky.

CA spy play should involve strategy not a simple "oh, he played his spy, i should spy back" or "oh, I am playing the blue coin, let's spy and hope he doesn't spy back" etc. It's not strategy, that's not tactic - that's a simple abuse.

Make spies bigger bodies to compensate, 13 is a good bronze, spies should be valued as an average silver - 15 points at worst. Make the spy on red coin become a unit that can be played just for the points to compensate. Or different values depending on the coin. Less value spy for the blue and more for the red coin.

Spying back is the worst thing that happened to this game.

CA spy for the blue coin might be the only chance for that player to get ahead in the game and punish the opponent for playing passively (e.g. commiting small plays since he is on red coin anyway). CA spy for the red coin means much more - either a free 2 cards up, guaranteed win on the first round (could be even on even considering the low value on spies) or denying the only punishment tool that the blue player had.

Coinflip may be the problem but it's not the real root of THE problem, the real problem lies in spies and spying back. Make the first round matter again.

The other problem is inconsistency of spies: if one player gets the spy and other don't that often proves to be the game winning factor in that match. Especially considering spy tutors - some factions are more favoured in that situations while others are left in the cold. Because of that alzur's double cross became almost auto-include in most decks - just to pull spy, my guess, that wasn't the intented use of that card. Decks that would be okay without double-cross but with other silver can't afford the luxury if they lack the spy tutor. Why not make spy to be in every starting hand (or just in the starting hand of blue coin side) to remove that incostistency and remove the really hated spy tutoring?

Little off-topic: The solutions are there and they aren't really that complex. Why no moves from the developer side for almost half a year? Homecoming and such, what is the point if the player base which you want to transit into the start of the new "era" gets more and more tired, more and more frustrated, less and less trusting? It's like a perfectionist trying to build a perfect castle out of sand while the ocean waves keep destroying every wall foundations he has built. Homecoming launch - then what? Will there be another open beta test while the product is presented as "complete"? No disrespect - just curiosity.
 
Last edited:

4RM3D

Ex-moderator
Congratulations, you've just summed up everything wrong with CA spies. The coin flip has become a big issue, with the removal of CA options (after closed beta). The CA spy is the only reliable way to gain a card back. The thing is, the coin flip is an extremely complicated problem to fix. And most users think too lightly about this as has become apparent in the various coin flip threads. The CA spy is an extension of this problem. Once the coin flip is fixed, the CA spy can be removed because it's a badly designed card with only a binary choice, usually requiring no thoughts or tactics to play.

The devs have chosen not to release a temporary fix until Homecoming, maybe because that would have made things worse or maybe because their time is better spend completing Homecoming. Whatever the reason, they are aware of the problem and it will be solved once Homecoming is released.
 
I agree 100%, my idea was to remove spy from decks but allow blue coin player to choose spawning them with leader instead of normal leader ability.
 

Guest 4226291

Guest
This just seems like pointless complaining. The problem isn’t the spy it’s the coin flip. It’s sad that this kind of whining s why they’re taking them out of them game. So now we have an even simpler game with no CA strategies since spies will be gone and now there is a hand limit.

Even though after they became single use they are balanced, they get blamed for a problem of the coin flip which they will opefully fix with Homecoming. A spy takes up a silver slot, is a dead draw and instant lose if topdecked in round 3, very difficult to overcome in one turn without using their power cards, and is the only way to get card advantage in the game which is kind of the point. 14 points is not easy to overcome, least of all with a bronze card. Most silvers are around that value and only a few of them are above that. Complaining that you didn’t draw a spy when they did? The same argument could be made for anything. My opponent got his golds and silvers and I didn’t get any, it decided the game. Restricting spies to be only used by blue coin? So that means if someone is unlucky enough to get a red coin they’re playing with only 5 silvers and have a completely dead card in their deck based off a coin toss at the beginning of the game? Spy tutoring as well? How? By using other gold and silver cards like Rainfarn and Skjall? None of this screams abuse or brokenness to me. It sounds like you had a game where you drew bad on blue coin with no spy while they had one, yeah it sucks but just remove them from the game or make them completely unplayable? What kind of solution is that?

All your problems seem to be with the coin flip, dry passing after losing on even, and basically all the disadvantages that come with going first. Why blame CA spies when they’re not even a problem? If the coin flip is fair then CA wouldn’t be such a deciding factor in the first place, and CA isn’t even a guaranteed win. Certain decks go for 2-0 and don’t mind being down one or even two cards in the final round. Two players spying against each other accomplished nothing, so how is that a problem to you? You’re both on even with you still to act as if neither of you played spies. It’s no different then you on a blue coin with no spies played at all.

This thread seems to be like one of the many others posted by someone who just lost a game and is using emotion rather than rational thinking to judge game balance. Well be happy because in 3 months they’ll be gone for good and you’ll get your wish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow!?! I think having a spy is integral to this game and I can't fathom the idea of removing/restricting them. imho, the spy abuse only existed back when SC/Runestone spies were a thing. And also the "bronze spy" that was Wardancer.

Having a +CA spy (1 and ONLY 1) is an essential mechanic in Gwent due to the nature of the opening coin flip. It's the best tool we have to overcome a blue coin. Dry pass and carryover are your other options. imho, you should revise your deck if you can't consistently use at least one (preferably two) of these options. In ranked I play MS with Crones+Ge'els+Toad and will draw Frightener almost every single match. I have no need to incorporate carryover. I quit at rank 20.

If you get a blue coin vs Bran then you should strongly consider an open pass, especially if you have no carryover option. I open pass vs Bran 100% of the time and that simple move makes Bran's value plummet. Open pass counters rd1 carryover (not just vs Bran) and if they have Cerys then you're now likely to only see her once in the match, further reducing Bran value.

If they try to bleed or 2-0 me, it can backfire unless they have a deck that can spew massive points. I'll typically moonlight one of my rows first to encourage them to continue rd2 and look for an opportunity for Weavess+Crones to net 28 points and take the lead by surprise. Very few decks can then beat my following point spew and I'll go from blue coin to last say in rd3.

Generally, you should only use your spy if you will retain the lead, otherwise it's a big loss in value. Yeah if they play their spy in rd1 after you get a blue coin, it will often force you to forfeit the round but if winning rd1 is so crucial then you need to revise your deck imo. You need to do anything you can to counter the blue coin since the outcome of a Gwent match is so highly dependent on CA, it's basically everything when matched against a good player.

There is no real "fix" for a coinflip because the outcome is binary. Yeah it can be frustrating and it lowers the skill gap but it's the nature of the beast.
 
Fact is, all this problems derive on the trend of CA gain restriction this game is suffering since the end of CB. When you have a crap ton of ways to recover/gain card advantage, than a coin flip that decides who's going first and/or a shitty negative 14 point card silver that skips your turn aint really a problem. But when ca gain is scarce than those become a HUGE problem.

But when people loose a game because they have 1 or 2 less cards than the opponent on hand, they will complain on the first thing they think generated the problem ; card advantage cards, and thus ask for nerf/delete those cards from the game, and the innexperienced devs will fall for it, and thus the few garbage cards/mechanics that still generate CA will aggravate the problem because they will become even more crucial to the flow of the game to the point that if you nerf/delete them all you will transform the game in a huge one round slam point fiesta, pretty much as arena gameplay is now.
 
Ehem, people, It wasn't my intention to whine, I wanted to present the lack of balance in the use of spy by the blue and red coin players. You can agree or disagree with the statement but cheapening it out by simply calling it whinning is kinda low and counter-productive.

Second thing is, yes, it is an extention of the coin flip problem but at the same time coin flip lack of balance does not cower the second and third round thoughly, you simply can drypass to mitigate the coinflip that's where the spying issues come into play.

I, myself, am not against presence of spies in the game and in no way, shape or form I explicitly said "delete spies" in my original post. What I said was: make first round matter again, make usage of spies balanced for both sides and more tactical, thoughtful, not simple "counterspying".
 
Last edited:
Even though after they became single use they are balanced, they get blamed for a problem of the coin flip [...]
Wow!?! I think having a spy is integral to this game and I can't fathom the idea of removing/restricting them.

CA spies are a problem, not because they aren't balanced, but because they have become a necessity in every deck. Furthermore, they offer only a binary choice that's neither interesting or tactical.

Having a +CA spy (1 and ONLY 1) is an essential mechanic in Gwent due to the nature of the opening coin flip. It's the best tool we have to overcome a blue coin.

That argument doesn't hold because your opponent can just counter-spy you. If you play smart, you can use a spy to regain CA, but situations where that becomes a possibility are quite rare.
 
CA spies are a problem, not because they aren't balanced, but because they have become a necessity in every deck. Furthermore, they offer only a binary choice that's neither interesting or tactical.



That argument doesn't hold because your opponent can just counter-spy you. If you play smart, you can use a spy to regain CA, but situations where that becomes a possibility are quite rare.

Thank you for perfectly summing it up in a simple and laconic form. :)
 
The problem with spyes is that they are Opresive on low tempo decks, i open with hawker suport and oponent play spy force me to pass and he make it in 1card :mad:
on redcoin spy should become loyal
 

Guest 4226291

Guest
CA spies are a problem, not because they aren't balanced, but because they have become a necessity in every deck. Furthermore, they offer only a binary choice that's neither interesting or tactical.



That argument doesn't hold because your opponent can just counter-spy you. If you play smart, you can use a spy to regain CA, but situations where that becomes a possibility are quite rare.

Disagreed. Whether you think they’re interesting I don’t believe is a justification for their removal. If I don’t find something like a card or archetype interesting that isn’t a justification for their removal. How much you like or are interested by cards or decks has no objective meaning to other players.

Regarding whether they are tactical, broken, or oppressive, I believe they have a purpose and are balanced. Whether it’s to thin the deck and punish a player who overcommits in round 1 by playing a lot of engines or powerful cards only for the opponent to use their spy or just straight up pass on them. How exactly are they oppressive? What’s exactly do silver spies do that somehow breaks the game? If your deck is easily punished by spies in round 1 it’s also easily punished by an early pass which speaks more about the weaknesses of your deck than silver spies. Spies don’t do anything that a pass doesn’t. If it’s so critical that you play a long round 1 or that you win it, maybe the issue is with your deck. All your criticisms of spies apply to someone whi passes early on round 1.

Spies would only be oppressive is somehow they could consistently be overcome in a single turn by any card. For the people saying that only people on blue coin get to use a spy, what does that solve? You just simply revert the coin flip and the guy who got spied then is now in the same predictament you’re in where he feels he’s at a disadvantage because you’re now the last one to act.

You haven’t provided any evidence of why spies are oppressive to the game. All I’m getting is opinion with no reasoning as to why. Please demonstrate specifically in what cases a spy is overpowered or oppressive in a situation that also doesn’t lead to the same result as if they just simply pass on you.
 
Disagreed. Whether you think they’re interesting I don’t believe is a justification for their removal. If I don’t find something like a card or archetype interesting that isn’t a justification for their removal. How much you like or are interested by cards or decks has no objective meaning to other players.

Regarding whether they are tactical, broken, or oppressive, I believe they have a purpose and are balanced. Whether it’s to thin the deck and punish a player who overcommits in round 1 by playing a lot of engines or powerful cards only for the opponent to use their spy or just straight up pass on them. How exactly are they oppressive? What’s exactly do silver spies do that somehow breaks the game? If your deck is easily punished by spies in round 1 it’s also easily punished by an early pass which speaks more about the weaknesses of your deck than silver spies. Spies don’t do anything that a pass doesn’t. If it’s so critical that you play a long round 1 or that you win it, maybe the issue is with your deck. All your criticisms of spies apply to someone whi passes early on round 1.

Spies would only be oppressive is somehow they could consistently be overcome in a single turn by any card. For the people saying that only people on blue coin get to use a spy, what does that solve? You just simply revert the coin flip and the guy who got spied then is now in the same predictament you’re in where he feels he’s at a disadvantage because you’re now the last one to act.

You haven’t provided any evidence of why spies are oppressive to the game. All I’m getting is opinion with no reasoning as to why. Please demonstrate specifically in what cases a spy is overpowered or oppressive in a situation that also doesn’t lead to the same result as if they just simply pass on you.

First of all, I don't see statements about deleting spies at all here, some people are saying the game is better without them but they are not insisting on deleting them.

Second of all: All the purposes of the spy you wrote in the first paragraph are a complete joke. Yes, that what they provide IF only one side uses spy, in cases when the other side uses spy right after the first one, in other words, "counter-spies" those statements don't work at all. And yes, they are oppressive, since the blue coin side need to either commit a big play or pass after the red-coin spy to have a shot at winning the round or at least staying on same cards. The red coin on the other hand has much more tools to control the flow of the first round. Red coin spy benefits =/= blue coin spy benefits. That is the main issue with spies.

You asked for situations: you are on the blue coin, you throw a bronze card on the board - you currently have around 12 points, opponent spies you. Your options are: to commit one more card and win the round 2 cards down; pass or use your own spy. In case of the pass you have around 25 points. What's that? Opponent tutored the spy? The difference is only around 18-20 points? He overcomes the round in 1 golden card and wins the round on same cards as you or he commits 1 silver and 1 bronze (bronzes are 11 on average, silvers are 15 on the lowest average). The result? You lost the round, opponent is 1 card down, nothing special but you don't control the flow of the game anymore. The option where you use your own spy - the round continues as if nothing happened BUT if you are willing to push for the win in the first round you can't bleed round 2 efficiently, you don't have the tool anymore, in that case, if you want to keep same amount of cards as your opponent you can only pass the round 2. Of course, you can play round 2 but there are no guarantees that you will stay up on points and finish the round on same cards. So tell me, do you see the real benefits of the spy in those situations? Do you gain the CA this spy provides?

Also, are you saying that you can't overcome 13 point card in one turn? Have you actually logged in the game since midwinter? Good bronze cards can be more than 13 points right now. Good golds can score even 25-30 points.
 
Disagreed. Whether you think they’re interesting I don’t believe is a justification for their removal. If I don’t find something like a card or archetype interesting that isn’t a justification for their removal. How much you like or are interested by cards or decks has no objective meaning to other players.

It's not about my opinion. I think a lot of cards are boring, but I do not ask for their removal. No, when a card has become a necessity across all factions, you know it has gone too far. That's just a statistical fact.

Incidentally, cards that can counter themselves are by definition badly designed cards. The biggest offender, other than the CA spies, was Muzzle when the card was just released and everyone was running it. Muzzle -> counter-Muzzle. But that's just boring and not really an issue, unlike CA spies.

You haven’t provided any evidence of why spies are oppressive to the game. All I’m getting is opinion with no reasoning as to why. Please demonstrate specifically in what cases a spy is overpowered or oppressive in a situation that also doesn’t lead to the same result as if they just simply pass on you.

I never said CA spies were oppressive or unbalanced. Most issues rise from the coin-flip, not the CA spies, although CA spies do have their own problems, as pointed out by qbim.
 
:mad: cant play any low tempo decks because i get insta punished by this poinstpam apogee named poettt :mad:
fuuu.jpg
 
Spy abuse on bluecoin not big deal??
dont know what cdpr was thinking when they released braindead poet without fixing coinflip. :mad:
 
Top Bottom