In my view this is fairly substantial strategic play. If you took this away the game would reduce to a simple boring damage/heal + boost/reset.
I won't claim there isn't strategy involved. I would claim it's minimal in many cases, however. Most of the stuff being run is obvious. A great number of those concepts involve a huge finisher. Failing to win R1 frequently makes that huge finisher unanswerable. Failing to stop the setup for that huge finisher, if any exists, means you lose the game. Many of these huge finishers create such a huge board swing there is nothing to be done. Many of those can only be stopped by specific counter cards.
When you have a huge unanswerable swing if the game unfolds a certain way, and the only way to upset it is with specific cards, it means failing to draw those cards decides the game. Going back to Eredin.... Your "answers" are a few specific cards, generating more points or bleeding. The last one requires winning R1. The first one requires drawing those specific cards. Unless your deck is built a specific way #2 is off the table. Basically, I don't have an issue with the setup and the way a lot of this stuff works. I have an issue with the size of the point swings in the game right now.
None of this means the better player won't win. I do think the player making the better choices, or running the better concept, does tend to come out on top, even now. There are games where the draws, flip result, match-up or something outside player control do decide the game, however. To me, that isn't Gwent.
I
As a former MTG player I am used to combo decks and all the stuff people call ‘binary’ in Gwent and it doesn’t bother me at all.
In my view (and I wrote it elswhere) Gwent doesn’t need more nerfs or bans or card redesign, it needs a lot more cards and a better competitive mode.
I see where you’re coming from. The question is what is Gwent to you? To me it’s an online TCG (I played and liked Magic the Gathering a lot but not willing to invest time and money into it anymore) with the Witcher lore (I read the books long before I played Witcher 3, related DLC and Gwent).
As a former MTG player I am used to combo decks and all the stuff people call ‘binary’ in Gwent and it doesn’t bother me at all.
In my view (and I wrote it elswhere) Gwent doesn’t need more nerfs or bans or card redesign, it needs a lot more cards and a better competitive mode.
There is the issue. Gwent was initially advertised as a skill based CCG. If you play better than the opponent you win. Evidently, HC is trying to make it more like other CCG's. It's basically slowly gone from skill based CCG to achievement/quest/reward book/card treadmill.
I agree with you on this. I also think the Gwent community should talk more about this, about the big picture I mean, rather than debating to death whether Geralts and Spears are ‘binary’ and bad design or whether forfeiting is (or isn’t) sportsmen like.
Those conversations have been had. Despite certain hollow claims to the contrary they have not materialized into anything. The train keeps chugging along in the same direction.
I never said something about random effects, because it's like you say: there are not many in this game. You've exhausted your own statement with two sentences...not bad. And I'm tired of discussing with people who talk nonsense and only want to put one's oar in.
Rarely seen a company so hellbent on ignoring its customer base. It's weird.
It still is advertised like that. https://www.playgwent.com/en/join
"GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon."
"SKILL BEATS LUCK
Crush the enemy with brute strength or outsmart them with clever tricks — GWENT’s unique round-based gameplay opens up a world of strategic possibilities to play with."
I have a very strong feeling that, compared to beta, there is now more RNG and variance, binary gambling stuff (artifacts, crazy one-shot removal/destroy) and less consistency with almost no tutors, two bronze copies and absence of blacklisting.
Talking about the big picture as petr_klokan mentioned, does skill really beat luck in this game?
Edit: variation -> variance
Last edited:
On average, yes. However, there are always high rolls possible, either by your opponent not getting the cards (s)he needs (and/or you do) or playing at the wrong end of a rock-paper-scisscors matchup.
Don't forget coin flip. It's not as bad as it was, but it is still an issue.
On a skill / luck spectrum, Gwent has steadily moved further away from the former and more towards the latter. Pre-Midwinter Gwent was quite a bit more skill-driven, with lower variance and RNG generally.
Like in poker, the top players can still prevail though, over the long run, thanks to their greater skill at managing that variance and playing the percentages better. It just takes longer.
It seems to have been a clear design decision to increase variance in Gwent, with CDPR apparently targeting a different audience to that which the earlier form of the game attracted. The graphical design overhaul suggests this too, with an emphasis on style over functional utility. The loss in player numbers along the way seems to indicate that many of the long-term players weren't happy with that new approach.
Whether enough new players will be attracted to this new form of Gwent remains to be seen. Perhaps more importantly, will they be invested in it for the long term? It has been said before, but in terms of CCGs, Gwent has gone from something different to more of the same - and that's a pretty crowded market.
Like in poker, the top players can still prevail though, over the long run, thanks to their greater skill at managing that variance and playing the percentages better. It just takes longer.
It seems to have been a clear design decision to increase variance in Gwent, with CDPR apparently targeting a different audience to that which the earlier form of the game attracted. The graphical design overhaul suggests this too, with an emphasis on style over functional utility. The loss in player numbers along the way seems to indicate that many of the long-term players weren't happy with that new approach.
Whether enough new players will be attracted to this new form of Gwent remains to be seen. Perhaps more importantly, will they be invested in it for the long term? It has been said before, but in terms of CCGs, Gwent has gone from something different to more of the same - and that's a pretty crowded market.
I can just suggest to the OP that you take a break from gwent and come back later if you feel like.
There are people enjoing this game, like me. I think most of the things you mentioned are fine.
For example immune units. There is so much removal in the game.. and immunity counters removal.
The cards i would like to get changed are the weather cards. They´re extremely boring designwise and not fun to use or play against. Instead fog reducing range, ragnahrog buffing maybe ghosts? and frost makes units unable to move... combined with cards that get stronger when weather is applied (weather as an engine) sounds a lot more interesting to me.
But we will see
There are people enjoing this game, like me. I think most of the things you mentioned are fine.
For example immune units. There is so much removal in the game.. and immunity counters removal.
The cards i would like to get changed are the weather cards. They´re extremely boring designwise and not fun to use or play against. Instead fog reducing range, ragnahrog buffing maybe ghosts? and frost makes units unable to move... combined with cards that get stronger when weather is applied (weather as an engine) sounds a lot more interesting to me.
But we will see
The latter part I agree with but you should have said "on average, no". On average the luck of the initial deal is what defines the game, because EVERYBODY plays the same tired netdecks so it's almost entirely down to whether you got a decent deal R1 and whether the mulligans work in your favour.
Skill plays a much, much lesser %age in this version of Gwent.
So, everyone on pro-ladder is just extremely lucky?
That depends on your deck and the opponent you're facing. Playing junk cards and passing early can still win you the game. Furthermore, some things are just inherently risky, like keeping Witchers till the final round. But sometimes you just have to risk a mulligan, in order to win.
I stopped taking what they say seriously a while ago
. Everyone else does it too isn't really a great defense.
I'm not going to sit here and say this game or CCG's in general is/are easy to balance. But, come on.... I'll throw out two recent examples...
1. Hubert. When the setup behind this card goes as planned, with last say and multiple high damage output cards sticking on the board, it probably wins the game. It can easily translate to a 20-25+ point swing in a single turn when combined with the proper cards, leader abilities, etc. The card got changed from 7p to 8p in the recent patch. What exactly does that accomplish? You take a bronze card in your deck and substitute a slightly worse bronze card in for it.
2. Spears and shields. So, these cards got hit with complaints. Most of those complaints were directed at the former of the two. What did they do? Capped them to 4 charges. Now they're basically unplayable.
It's pathetic how they approach adjustments to card abilities in this game.... It's not even a new thing. It's been this way going all the way back to CB. Most adjustments either do nothing, push cards into unplayable land or break something else. And around and around it goes....
On average, yes. Skill will win out.
Unfortunately, it still isn't particularly fun. It's not fun to play against Witchers + Roach, into Coral, into discard spam, into Commanders Horn, only to have Lippy hit the board and have the same thing repeat. It's not fun to constantly wonder if the other player is running DD + Nivellen because without an answer it will often win the game R3. Throw thrives and big body units at a board to win R1 then spam more of them in R2 until you have two or three 10-12+ point options left for R3. Or toss Speartip at a board with the expectation your unconditional 12-13 pt card play (12 now) will translate to CA or, prior to dropping it, force the other player out of a round.
So basically what the last few posts are saying is that in order to be about skill all factions should be able to build a deck that thins to 2-3 card in worst case scenario, and preferably to 0. Because it's really one of the major differences from the beta and one of the main reasons SK is considered so OP right now, for still being able to thin down to 0 and reuse some of the cards.