Devotion, Neutrals and Uniqueness

[Slizzl]

As a concept I love devotion, but I got to thinking, why is it that in the same expansion devotion is introduced unique faction-specific interactions with neutrals keep being removed? Shouldn't devotion in itself be incentive enough to consider opting out of these? Why the overkill to neutral decks?
As a result now the top tiers are devotion only.
Is the ultimate goal here to have every faction interact the exact same way with neutral cards? That sounds awfully binary and boring.

To me the natural course after introducing devotion would be to have faction-locked abilities like Freya's Blessing work on neutral cards so there's a reason for considering both directions during deckbuilding thus promoting creativity. But maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[BlackSwan1092]

Well, I wouldn't mind a neutral devotion deck. Could have some fun creative ideas.

I like Devotion, personally and I like to build around it. The only faction I am not having success with is NG, as I do not play Ball/poison deck. So my NG decks is not devotion.

I think they're doing it because, with the new leaders and the plans they have for the next major update (not draft mode) some of the cards that do not see much play will. Making some of the less played cards "buffed" with synergies vice direct buffs.

But we'll see

 

[Markus_Wirth]

Neutral devotion and neutral leaders/leader abilities would be very awesome. This issue was already discussed in this thread.

My idea for a bandit leader with intense high provision boost but negative ability.

Also really appreciate the idea of neutral devotion.

To my mind one might even think about neutral leaders building around some neutral-specific tags:
- For example Gascon: Can have neutral cards or bandits from other fractions. Provision limit: 25. Ability: Give one allied unit bleeding if you play a unit without the bandit tag.

How would I design these new neutral focused decks:
- Add neutral devotion too some neutral
- Make neutral leader´s focus on specific tags (e.g. Gascon can also add bandits from other fractions, but no other cards from this fractions.

For me the following tags would make sense for neutral leaders:
- bandits (maybe also with support of bomb archetype)
- dragons
- witcher
- Mage (maybe also with support of spell)
- Construct
- Relict
- Ofiri (additional tag must be added)
- Demon + Cursed

Regarding fraction locked abilities:
To my mind this makes sense to some degree to abolish unhealthy strong interactions (e.g. Ethereal + Caranthir; Queen Adalia + Caravan Vanguard ). Regarding Freya´s Blessing: Playing units from your graveyard is about to be a SK only thing. But there a various opportunities for other fractions to interact with their own graveyard (https://gwent.one/en/cards/?v=7.2.0&q=grave)).
On additional draw-back of those fraction locked abilities is that it hurts NG Assimiliate. Nevertheless, I think it´s important to avoid that the fractions loose their meaning

 

[wonderboy870]

The concept behind devotion is a simple one. To create more deck diversity in the meta, you give incentive for some people to only use faction specific cards. For other people who want cards like Heatwave, Gigni, and Oneiromamcy, you can break devotion and not lose that much. Honestly, with the exception of warriors, there is very little incentive to play devotion. All things considered devotion is an excellent idea because in theory it creates more deck diversity at the top of ranked and at the pro level. In practice it is a mixed bag as too much power to devotion will defeat the purpose and too little and no one will use.

 

[Slizzl]

The concept behind devotion is a simple one. To create more deck diversity in the meta, you give incentive for some people to only use faction specific cards. For other people who want cards like Heatwave, Gigni, and Oneiromamcy, you can break devotion and not lose that much. Honestly, with the exception of warriors, there is very little incentive to play devotion. All things considered devotion is an excellent idea because in theory it creates more deck diversity at the top of ranked and at the pro level. In practice it is a mixed bag as too much power to devotion will defeat the purpose and too little and no one will use.

I find that some factions like SK and NR have very little reason to play anything but devotion. The only factions that really use Korathi or Oneiro needs them as crutches because they don't have any similar faction cards. And in the end their decks perform worse for it.
This is why I made this rant thread.
Why would Adalia lose her ability to interact with neutral cards when there was already very little incentive to do so? It just seems like overkill and unnecessarily removing options from the game.
There will probably be more devotion cards introduced after this, the more of those introduced the more neutral cards suffer. I don't think removing perfectly viable neutral support is a good idea, it will skew the direction too far in devotion's favor as seen in this meta.

 

[wonderboy870]

I find that some factions like SK and NR have very little reason to play anything but devotion. The only factions that really use Korathi or Oneiro needs them as crutches because they don't have any similar faction cards. And in the end their decks perform worse for it.
This is why I made this rant thread.
Why would Adalia lose her ability to interact with neutral cards when there was already very little incentive to do so? It just seems like overkill and unnecessarily removing options from the game.
There will probably be more devotion cards introduced after this, the more of those introduced the more neutral cards suffer. I don't think removing perfectly viable neutral support is a good idea, it will skew the direction too far in devotion's favor as seen in this meta.

she lost the ability because people were using her to play for too many points. Caravan vanguard was basic auto include and supported drauger. At least when she spawns immortal cavalry she is only playing for 9 instead of 12. They also made clear her interactions with neutrals restricted their design ability moving forward. They want to change certain units whose interactions go beyond what is intended. Take the living armor situation. Instead of one 10 point unit you could make up to 4. It was never the devs intent so they eliminated the loophole allowing it to happen.

As for devotion, in most cases it is actually not worth it. You lose lacerate and surrender (the best anti spawn row control,) dragons dream, GIgni, Regis row, scorch, dandelion poet, and triss telekinesis to name only a few. I don’t know how the current meta has shaped up, but I do know in casual non devotion is way better than devotion.

I do think they will expand devotion and I do think it is a good thing. I also love the idea of a neutral devotion, and started a thread about it which you can look at. In theory devotion increases deck diversity. In practice, we need more time and more devotion cards to know for sure.

 

[Barracuda88]

This side of Ethereal nerf, non-devotion basically means Oneiro+Heatwave. The reason SK and NR don't play that is pretty obvious: both have Echo tutors and both have very strong tall removal options. Idk if I understand "neutral devotion," but some perks of the type "If your starting deck has N number of neutral cards, get this..." would be pretty sweet

 

[wonderboy870]

This side of Ethereal nerf, non-devotion basically means Oneiro+Heatwave. The reason SK and NR don't play that is pretty obvious: both have Echo tutors and both have very strong tall removal options. Idk if I understand "neutral devotion," but some perks of the type "If your starting deck has N number of neutral cards, get this..." would be pretty sweet

A neutral devotion would be either a specially created leader ability that is unable to work with any faction cards, or any faction leader with no faction specific cards. Certain neutrals would have devotion exclusive abilities or enhancements, and it would function like it does now.

As for the current state of the meta, row punish like Regis, dream, surrender, and lacerate would all be popular. Think about how important row punish is in the modern meta. Devotion just isn’t that strong yet. Given time it might get there.

 

[Azuma-II]

From what I've seen, this is a Devotion VS Heatwave meta.
The decks are either Devotion decks, or they run Heatwave.
All top decks appear to fall into one of these 2 categories.

...which is very dull and monotone in my humble opinion.

 

[RyseAurellius]

From what I've seen, this is a Devotion VS Heatwave meta.
The decks are either Devotion decks, or they run Heatwave.
All top decks appear to fall into one of these 2 categories.

...which is very dull and monotone in my humble opinion.

That's the story with every meta though.

People see streamers on YouTube create these meta decks using the very narrow viability options CDPR has provided this game. People wanting their good win loss/ratios and super ladder climbing decks will always create a narrow meta. And no, before anyone starts I'm not attacking players for using meta decks. Its a dev issue not a player one.

CDPR has huge amounts of work to do to actually make this game diverse. From what I've seen from them over the last year I'm not sure they can achieve it. There is a staggering amount of useless cards at the moment, and every patch brings balance issues and make more cards non viable.

 

[Fargothwave]

And no, before anyone starts I'm not attacking players for using meta decks. Its a dev issue not a player one..

It's a player issue as much as dev one.

Sticking to the strongest flavor of the month indicates a player who's more interested in grinding imaginary numbers and (questionable) gratification of easy victory rather than fun. Some of them actively enjoy ruining yours, too (have you seen this new Precision Strike low-unit abomination?).

There's no reason to respect this tryhard-bully treatment of the game. Especially with so many viable-but-not-quite-broken archetypes existing right now.

The game allows you to play all kinds of fun, cunning, beautiful decks and have a reasonable winrate through skill, but I'd say only 1 game in 6 is something at least remotely unusual, and that's at prorank, where people are more chill, generally.

And I am not really sure just adding more viable options to the game and updating powercrept cards can fix this. As long as there is a distinct top dog archetype (or at least a perceived top dog), a significant part of the playerbase will flock to it.

I absolutely loathe these new decks that can spam control and pointslam pretty hard at the same time somehow, but there will always be something as irritating, too.
Now, choosing whether to abuse it or not, is clearly a player's decision.
So I'd say "don't be too harsh on devs".

 

[judgecsk]

It's a player issue as much as dev one.

Sticking to the strongest flavor of the month indicates a player who's more interested in grinding imaginary numbers and (questionable) gratification of easy victory rather than fun. Some of them actively enjoy ruining yours, too (have you seen this new Precision Strike low-unit abomination?).

There's no reason to respect this tryhard-bully treatment of the game. Especially with so many viable-but-not-quite-broken archetypes existing right now.

The game allows you to play all kinds of fun, cunning, beautiful decks and have a reasonable winrate through skill, but I'd say only 1 game in 6 is something at least remotely unusual, and that's at prorank, where people are more chill, generally.

And I am not really sure just adding more viable options to the game and updating powercrept cards can fix this. As long as there is a distinct top dog archetype (or at least a perceived top dog), a significant part of the playerbase will flock to it.

I absolutely loathe these new decks that can spam control and pointslam pretty hard at the same time somehow, but there will always be something as irritating, too.
Now, choosing whether to abuse it or not, is clearly a player's decision.
So I'd say "don't be too harsh on devs".

While i do agree with your general sentiment matey, i know that you know...
...you know that every competitive game has this in it, a few heros (lol - dota), guns (cs and other fps) that perform better, even to insane level when compared to others depending on the meta ofc.

Having all that in mind, i do agree that it's a hard job that the devs have in their hands but sure as hell it doesn't help to ask of people to grind for hours to get what they want and the only way to shorten that time is to play "meta".
Unless you're a genious at deck building and you're fast at doing it aswell, you're kindah forced to play "meta" if you want that "Ciri's Best Fun" or something achievement.

Only a few days remain for this journey to be completed and i'm really happy for it even if i don't reach lvl 175.
After it's end, if CDPR doesn't come up with another 175lvl journey with no way of skipping the grind other than winning as much as you can, things will get a lot better imo.

As for the Devotion - Neutrals subject, the main issue is scenarios and korathi imo, devos will use scenarios and neutrals will use korathi and scenarios as long they're avaliable to em, it only makes sense.

Cheers !

 

[Fargothwave]

While i do agree with your general sentiment matey, i know that you know...
...you know that every competitive game has this in it, a few heros (lol - dota), guns (cs and other fps) that perform better, even to insane level when compared to others depending on the meta ofc.

Having all that in mind, i do agree that it's a hard job that the devs have in their hands but sure as hell it doesn't help to ask of people to grind for hours to get what they want and the only way to shorten that time is to play "meta".
Unless you're a genious at deck building and you're fast at doing it aswell, you're kindah forced to play "meta" if you want that "Ciri's Best Fun" or something achievement.

Only a few days remain for this journey to be completed and i'm really happy for it even if i don't reach lvl 175.
After it's end, if CDPR doesn't come up with another 175lvl journey with no way of skipping the grind other than winning as much as you can, things will get a lot better imo.

As for the Devotion - Neutrals subject, the main issue is scenarios and korathi imo, devos will use scenarios and neutrals will use korathi and scenarios as long they're avaliable to em, it only makes sense.

Cheers !

I see what you're saying, and of course meta knights aren't anything new (some irritable folk in LoL go AFK if you pick unusual champ for unusual position!), but your second example - DotA, that is, is a major exception in that there's no bricked heroes or items there, which was achieved through a long series of careful tiny adjustments and sharp uniqueness of competing in-game elements.
Of course, such a thing would be impossible in modern Gwent, because most existing interactions revolve around same tired and linear "add 2 points, remove 2 points", this very paradigm leads to existence of indisputable top dogs that add or subtract better than the others...
But even then, CDPR keeps adding cards like Master Mirror, or new Blizzard or bit earlier, Ofieri Merchant, so there's still hope.

Devo vs. non-Devo is just a symptom of a larger issue - matches are just series of binary checks now. Unstoppable engines vs. incessant removal. Both need to be taken down a several good notches to even start talking about any kind of balance (as of now, removal is clearly stronger, as evidenced by several latest mets reports), but the main issue is still that the game has become too linear, with far too few interesting conditional cards like Collusion.

 

[RyseAurellius]

It's a player issue as much as dev one.

Now, choosing whether to abuse it or not, is clearly a player's decision.
So I'd say "don't be too harsh on devs".

I mean its a game, the purpose of which is to win. Trying to win and having fun don't have to be mutually exclusive. A deck that's fun for you to play against might not be fun for someone to play against. Its subjective.

And again, players use the tools CDPR have given them, I wouldn't go so far as to say its abusive or bullying behavior simply because people wish to use the best available combos. And I say that as someone who plays with my own custom non meta decks, I generally maintain a 50/50 win/loss ratio and almost always lose against meta decks. Except on the odd occasion when someone is clearly new to the meta deck and hasn't quite figured it out yet. BUT I still have fun, if people wish to play those decks I can't see any reason why they should be faulted.

Grinding for those "imaginary numbers" is the point of this game for some people. Some people are casual and just want to play every now and then, others play quite often and wish to grind their way to pro rank. So I strongly disagree with the assertion that someone is a "tryhard" or "bully" simply for using a certain type of deck.

 

[judgecsk]

I mean its a game, the purpose of which is to win. Trying to win and having fun don't have to be mutually exclusive. A deck that's fun for you to play against might not be fun for someone to play against. Its subjective.

And again, players use the tools CDPR have given them, I wouldn't go so far as to say its abusive or bullying behavior simply because people wish to use the best available combos. And I say that as someone who plays with my own custom non meta decks, I generally maintain a 50/50 win/loss ratio and almost always lose against meta decks. Except on the odd occasion when someone is clearly new to the meta deck and hasn't quite figured it out yet. BUT I still have fun, if people wish to play those decks I can't see any reason why they should be faulted.

Grinding for those "imaginary numbers" is the point of this game for some people. Some people are casual and just want to play every now and then, others play quite often and wish to grind their way to pro rank. So I strongly disagree with the assertion that someone is a "tryhard" or "bully" simply for using a certain type of deck.

Agreed even though i think it's making the casual mode a lil bit stale, i can understand why...
Them rat decks though, man... eploiting the row limit of your enemy, it's gotta be the most disgusting thing i've seen used.