Everything Wrong With Gwent IMO

[Ethromel]

1. The game is too creatively restrictive with factions being the premise for the whole game.

2. It does not allow enough freedom when it comes to deck building.

3. Leader abilities are not adaptable for any and all deck builds - i.e. Eldain in a deck without traps, Unseen Elder leading a deck without deathwish creatures.

4. The game is inconsistent. It is always necessary to read the cards because getting familiar with them is difficult since the abilities are liable to change to fix the obvious imbalance.

5. Random attacks made by the game is dumb - downright dumb. I was in a match, 3rd round, with BOTH my opponent and I, have a level 6 power unit on our respective sides. I had the advantage and with one last turn move made with Villentretenmerth I would have won, but instead, my own unit (randomly decided by the game) chooses to attack my side; and as I pass Villentretenmerth destroys MY level 6 card instead of my opponent's - costing me the match.

6. The point system for building decks is ridiculous, with some leaders allowing for more cards than their counterparts. How is this decided?

7. The card roster is extremely limited, and so painfully obvious that the game is broken that they had to include a point system when it came to building a deck. There aren't enough level 4 power cards to make decks unique besides cards related to their respective factions.

8. Thronebreaker is annoying with the constant changing of card abilities in the game. Choose the abilities and stick with it.

9. There is no freedom in this game or at best it is the pseudo-existence of freedom, but contradicts itself with the point system needed for victory but then restricts the player to only be allowed a certain amount of points to make the deck necessary to accomplish this goal.

10. The only reason why the game seems to work is that match-maker carefully picks the opponent with the deck that will give just the right amount of challenge. If match-making was more liberal with its selections, it would be very clear how lop-sided the factions are.

11. If it were not for the very cool artistry of the cards, the voice acting, and their animations, this game would bore most players to death. As it stands - basically its the gimmicks that are carrying this game. How far? Is the question.

12. Where are the vampire character units besides Regis and his higher vampire form? It is a Witcher based game, after all. There is a plethora of werewolves to choose from but no vampires. And most of the vampires that use to be in the game they removed, leaving us with two -just two (not even good) vampire units that cost a ridiculous amount to add to a deck. Why?

13. Immune is a stupid ability and needs to be removed from the game. Armor as in Thronebreaker needs to replace it. The werewolves are the ones that should have regenerative abilities, not Eskel, but the catch would be that werewolves can't be healed since they're too wild.

 

[idomyownstunts]

Don't forget, no jump button and definitely no double jump. Big mistake.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Way to nitpick everything about the game. The deck building aspect of the game is probably my favourite part of the game, it allows players to have a lot of FREEDOM when making a deck. There's actually four vampire cards in the game but how is that relevant to the topic? I don't see how that matters. Why would you ever play WOODLAND with Villen? The game shines when you actually put some thought into your decks. Jeez, maybe Gwent ain't for you.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

The game shines when you actually put some thought into your decks.

By thought you mean find the broken cards and put them into your deck.

 

[Pruny]

Way to nitpick everything about the game. The deck building aspect of the game is probably my favourite part of the game, it allows players to have a lot of FREEDOM when making a deck. There's actually four vampire cards in the game but how is that relevant to the topic? I don't see how that matters. Why would you ever play WOODLAND with Villen? The game shines when you actually put some thought into your decks. Jeez, maybe Gwent ain't for you.

Provisions killed Gwent

 

[OG.laloquaint]

By thought you mean find the broken cards and put them into your deck.

Example?

Provisions killed Gwent

Hm I don't think so, a lot of people still play Gwent.

 

[Rammyp]

Wow, thats a long list

1) Wasn't it always that way?

2) In what way? What do you mean by freedom, making a NG with MO and a side of ST deck?

3) Some of the leaders abilities are adaptable (crach, emhyr, usurper (not an ability but adaptable as hell)) some aren't. What's
the point in having decks based on deathwish or charges if a leader can't add his touch to it?

4) While the changes are there to fix imbalances they are also there to keep the game from becoming stale (along with the
addition of new cards ofcourse that will need balancing in time as well).

5) I've got a feeling that this is the reason for this entire post. I actualy agree with you about this particular case. In the beta
Villentretenmerth used to destroy all highest units and i believe that ability was better than the current one (thats why the card is pretty much dead), although with its original traits you would lose the match anyway, just saying.

6) I assume that by "more cards" you mean more provisions. Once again balancing issues, some leader abilities are a bit weaker and in order to not make them dead this is a possible solution, not perfect but most of the leaders are seen in ranked nevertheless.

7) The card pool was significantly reduced after the homecoming, partially for balance issues as there were a lot of changes itroduced to the game. It will grow, the March expansion will add about 100 cards and it won't be the last.

9) What??

10) Isn't that a good thing? Would you rather ranks 1-5 to be matched against 25-30??

11) True about most modern games. Gwent is a pretty interesting game imo but i doubt i would play it if not for the witchers lore.

12) Where is the entire kingdome of Redania? More cards are coming!!

13) Eeeeemm... No. Immune is fine the way it is and plenty of ways to deal with immune units.

 

[Pruny]

Hm I don't think so, a lot of people still play Gwent.

its thronebraker online now.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

its thronebraker online now.

Doesn't mean provisions killed Gwent.

 

[Pruny]

its my opinion, for me it did that.

 

[Archan6el]

Focusing on the technical aspects:

The randomness and inconsistency, the variance and RNG within several card's abilities is an issue. I also don't understand why blacklisting hasn't been brought back yet. This was in beta and was a good mechanic. Fortunately the mulligans have been fixed. Looking at the mechanics and card abilities, there has been an obvious effort to bring more RNG and variance to HC and I don't see how this gambling aspect can be good for a game that is supposed to be skill-based and strategic.

I agree with "Immune" being a bad thing. This is a strategy game where you have to compete with each other, therefore cards needs to be interactable. You're not playing chess with an immune queen are you? The same goes for artifacts with their very limited binary interactability. And then leader Eredin making powerful engines immune... that is just bad design. Freddybabes and Gameking touched on this as well in a recent video "Discussing Gwent's Problems".

 

[Rammyp]

I agree with "Immune" being a bad thing. This is a strategy game where you have to compete with each other and cards needs to be interactable. You're not playing chess with an immune queen are you? The same goes for artifacts with their very limited binary interactability. And then leader Eredin making powerful engines immune... that is just bad design. Freddybabes and Gameking touched on this as well in a recent video "Discussing Gwent's Problems".

The chess comparison is irrelevant, chess is balanced since both players have the same pieces. In gwent the cards are different, the leaders are different - thats why gwent will never be balanced like chess, for better or worse the games are completely different. You can play around Immune in so many ways. Same with Eredin, if you choose to play that way you are pretty much putting all your eggs in one basket, facing Scorch, Yrden, Villentretenmerth, Igni, Epidemic, and about half a dozen faction cards (like waylay or predatory dive) will mean almost certain defeat.

 

[Archan6el]

The chess comparison is irrelevant, chess is balanced since both players have the same pieces. In gwent the cards are different, the leaders are different - thats why gwent will never be balanced like chess, for better or worse the games are completely different.

It is not irrelevant. Gwent is being tweaked and cards are reworked all the time to get proper balance. The different card and leader abilities are irrelevant; we still want a balanced game. You can consider chess ultimately balanced in a lazy way by giving both players the same "deck".

You can play around Immune in so many ways. Same with Eredin, if you choose to play that way you are pretty much putting all your eggs in one basket, facing Scorch, Yrden, Villentretenmerth, Igni, Epidemic, and about half a dozen faction cards (like waylay or predatory dive) will mean almost certain defeat.

"Play around immune" is exactly the problem. I don't want to play around something. I want to interact with it, counter it, create a strategy to kill it. Immune does not allow that.

Eredin is really strong as he has access to big monsters, thrive and Crones. He is the worst by making a strong engine immune. All the cards that you mentioned do not work against an immune Imlerith or Yennefer for example. Immune engines will survive most of the time because most decks don't run the cards you mentioned. And even if they do, you have to draw this specific card and Eredin players know how to protect their immune engines from these cards.

 

[Rammyp]

It is not irrelevant. Gwent is being tweaked and cards are reworked all the time to get proper balance. The different card and leader abilities are irrelevant; we still want a balanced game. You can consider chess ultimately balanced in a lazy way by giving both players the same "deck".

We all want as much balance as possble in gwent but it will be nearly impossible to achieve, to continue your comparison to chess - its not just the same deck and leader its also having all the cards in your hand - which is not what gwent or any CCG games are about.

"Play around immune" is exactly the problem. I don't want to play around something. I want to interact with it, counter it, create a strategy to kill it. Immune does not allow that.

Eredin is really strong as he has access to big monsters, thrive and Crones. He is the worst by making a strong engine immune. All the cards that you mentioned do not work against an immune Imlerith or Yennefer for example. Immune engines will survive most of the time because most decks don't run the cards you mentioned. And even if they do, you have to draw this specific card and Eredin players know how to protect their immune engines from these cards.

Playing around and counter are sometimes quite simlar, scorching an immune unit seems like a counter to me. And aren't you "palying around" against not immune engine (like Yen fo instance) when you don't have any control cards available?
It's a matter of personal taste i think, but being able to interact with all the units will make gwent closer to a boring "click-buff/click-dmg" state.

 

[MU24bmw]

I don't want to play around something.

Then don't play card games.
Let's remove Geralt of Rivia and Leo because you don't want to play around your 8+ strength unit getting destroyed.
Let's remove Geralt Yrden and all other cards that reset cards because you want to be able to buff your units without risk.
That's just some examples. There are plenty more.
It's like Rammyp said, it's a matter of personal taste, and if you don't like it, that's fine, but maybe it just isn't for you then.

 

[Archan6el]

We all want as much balance as possble in gwent but it will be nearly impossible to achieve, to continue your comparison to chess - its not just the same deck and leader its also having all the cards in your hand - which is not what gwent or any CCG games are about.

Yes, like you wrote, we all want as much balance in Gwent as possible, therefore the comparison with chess is valid as it is the most balanced strategy game. Even though leaders and cards are very different, they still need to be balanced. Immune is not fun because it's not interactive and it is also not balanced, especially in the case of Eredin.

Playing around and counter are sometimes quite simlar, scorching an immune unit seems like a counter to me. And aren't you "palying around" against not immune engine (like Yen fo instance) when you don't have any control cards available?

Yes, if you have Scorch in your deck and hand and Yen is the highest unit. All very unlikely when playing against Eredin. Eredin will have cards to lign your units up for Yen, there is not much playing around it.

It's a matter of personal taste i think, but being able to interact with all the units will make gwent closer to a boring "click-buff/click-dmg" state.

Playing with or against an immune unit, you can only write "click/click", because you cannot buff or do damage to it. Seems more boring to me.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Playing around and counter are sometimes quite simlar, scorching an immune unit seems like a counter to me. And aren't you "palying around" against not immune engine (like Yen fo instance) when you don't have any control cards available?
It's a matter of personal taste i think, but being able to interact with all the units will make gwent closer to a boring "click-buff/click-dmg" state.

Scorch costs 14 provisions. You also have to tool your deck around it because playing big units or buff concepts with it is often pretty stupid. It's nearly never going to be worth it without some type of line-up potential either, since it costs 14 provisions. Yrden costs 11 provisions and has a 2 power body. Both cards can be rather terrible against certain decks.

The problem with immune as it relates to Eredin Slyzard is it's on a leader ability. Whomever thought putting immune on a leader was a good idea should probably stop coming up with ideas. The only "real" counters are the cards mentioned above, random damage options (Vrihedd Brigade, Shupe, etc.), winning R1 and forcing the leader ability out R2, or putting down more points. The first involves one faction or usage of a busted card, the second is heavily influenced by a lot going right (good opening hand R1, good bleed hand R2, coin flip), and the third probably entails playing MS or some other boost spam abuse (NG Chorn spam possibly, maybe Froth... Fila hand-buff might be able to keep pace, something with Fran?).

When it reaches a point where X, Y and Z must happen, several of which are outside the control of the player, or you lose the game it's no longer skill based. At that point they may as well call it Gwentstone. And, as I see it, this is indeed the case with HC.

 

[Archan6el]

...

I am talking about card interactability. Please don't cherry-pick one sentence without context. Everyone can read what I wrote before anyway. Writing things like "maybe it just isn't for you" is contemptuous and unconstructive on a forum where we try to improve this game together.

 

[MU24bmw]

I am talking about card interactiveness. Please don't cherry-pick one sentence and represent my post in an incomplete and incorrect way. Everyone can read what I wrote before anyway.

I didn't cherry pick one sentence, I just reduced the size of the quote to the most relevant part so that it didn't take up a lot extra unnecessary space - as you said people can read (and probably did already) what you said in full above. If you'd said "I don't want to play around immune", then fair enough, but you didn't. I wasn't the only one who wasn't clear with what you were saying. Now you've made your self clear in your followup post, so it's all good.

Onto the actual immune topic. I think Eredin having immune can be slightly problematic. Slyzard immune it kind of stupid, and perhaps not intended by CDPR.
Immune in general, probably OK. Take Avalach for example. You get a chance to deal with it before he can slap immune on something.
Though if immune was removed, either from Eredin, or completely, it wouldn't bother me really. There's probably enough people that don't like it that if it was changed/removed it wouldn't be bad for the game.

 

[Rammyp]

Yes, if you have Scorch in your deck and hand and Yen is the highest unit. All very unlikely when playing against Eredin. Eredin will have cards to lign your units up for Yen, there is not much playing around it.

I think you misunderstood my example. What i meant was what do you do in case your oponent plays an engine like Yen (not immune but regular) and you don't have the cards to remove or lock her. You probably play around her by buffing one of your units above the rest etc. Thats what i mean by playing around and unless you play with a heavy control deck you pretty much do this in every other match one way or another.

Scorch costs 14 provisions. You also have to tool your deck around it because playing big units or buff concepts with it is often pretty stupid. It's nearly never going to be worth it without some type of line-up potential either, since it costs 14 provisions. Yrden costs 11 provisions and has a 2 power body. Both cards can be rather terrible against certain decks.

Yes they can be terrible, and they can be gamechangers. Thats the beauty of it. If all cards would give their full value all the time they would be either boring or OP (or both).

The problem with immune as it relates to Eredin Slyzard is it's on a leader ability. Whomever thought putting immune on a leader was a good idea should probably stop coming up with ideas. The only "real" counters are the cards mentioned above, random damage options (Vrihedd Brigade, Shupe, etc.), winning R1 and forcing the leader ability out R2, or putting down more points. The first involves one faction or usage of a busted card, the second is heavily influenced by a lot going right (good opening hand R1, good bleed hand R2, coin flip), and the third probably entails playing MS or some other boost spam abuse (NG Chorn spam possibly, maybe Froth... Fila hand-buff might be able to keep pace, something with Fran?).

There are 6 neutral cards to disable Eredins Slyzard:
Scorch
Igni
Yrden
Epidemic
Black Blood (to a lesser extent)
Glorious hunt (at the very begining of the round)

Some factions have cards for it as well:
Waylay ST
Cahir NG (not tested but i think he will buff himself along with the slyzard)
Cealach NG (will remove the immune status)

How many options do you want there to be??

In case of eredin with non consuming units all the AOE and non direct dmg (I won't start to specify) can be pretty handy, along with some leader abilities like Harald's, so even more options there.