GWENT: Ask a Dev Discussion Thread

[Shakti420]

No Title

I'm done with the matchmaking, is there anything i can do except surrendering ? Still don't pass the rank 9. Wow fair game, enjoy, much fun, much balance. True, this guy has equal chance than me to have good cards and good deck why am i even complaining ???
OH OUUUUUUAH And now i fall against someone witht he title "Pioneer", this guy must be a beginer for sure, the game end with 125 to 32 OUAH I HAD SO MUCH FUCKING FUN THANK YOU SO MUCH

 

[4RM3D]

Shakti420

You are making it out to be that a level 43 player (vs a level 20 one), is always superior, but that isn't the case.

The level of a player is not a good indicator of his or her capabilities and it doesn't scale uniformly. The only reliable indicator is the rank of a player. However, because rank resets every season, that value is lost. Maybe CDPR ought to look at the average rank of a player across the (active) seasons, to get better matchmaking in casual. When they implement such a suggestion, then basically 4 kinds of players can be distinguished: beginners (rank <10), casuals (rank 11-17), pros (rank 18-20) and elites (rank 21+). Here, the only goal is to match those kind of players with others of the same group. The level indicator, however, is all over the place. I have seen level 30s having rank 21 and level 100s having rank 15. Besides, once we are a year further every non-beginner is level 60+, anyway.

The only thing level will tell you is how much time the player has spent playing the game, which is only important for beginners (level < 11). They, at least, should be protected from the rest. Higher level players usually have more cards, but that also depends on how much money those players have spent. Regardless, a bigger card pool doesn't make the player better either. Also, a beginner could already make a competitive deck by milling the starter decks, if (s)he knows exactly what (s)he wants. Though, I wouldn't recommend it.

While, statistically speaking, you are likely to find better opponents at higher level, it isn't the end all some players think it is because there are many other circumstantial win-conditions, like:

• The opponent has to go first.
• The opponent might be trying a new deck.
• The opponent has a bad hand.
• The opponent is playing 'scissors' against your 'rock'.
• The opponent makes a mistake.

 

[Shakti420]

In the screenshot i've posted there is the level of the opponent plus the thing around is player icon. Wich determine the rank of the last season, wich determine the time that person played, wich determine the number of good cards this guy might have and synergy between them. Most of the screen i've brought are from ranked play, even if i've already complain about Casual Play though, i've lost these matches. Oh and for the "

other circumstantial win-conditions, like:​

• The opponent has to go first."
  
  On ten games i've played, i was the one to begin the round on 4 games of the 10. Never Lucky !

The rest of the conditions you speak about are not reliable for me.
The opponent might be trying a new deck ? Well i might too but i've got the shitiest cards while this guy lvl 60 has got so many cards that even if he tries the deck he still has good cards. And it ranked it's unusual.
The opponent has a bad hands ? Well even this, against the sittiest cards you can comeback.
The opponent plays scissors against your rock ? Does that mean this guy is playing his counter deck ? Well i'm playing Dagon Weather and because it's an online game I only fall against people that want to sell their mom in order to win by playing the best "META" factions and decks.
The opponent makes a mistakes ? Never Lucky Once again.

Sorry for grammar mistakes i'm foreign and sand sighted it's a pain to write.

[EDIT] Right now i'm Under 50% winrate because the only faction I think interesting is Monsters and everything seems to counter this right now. Unless i play Unseen Elder with the good cards. But I haven't got the good cards, i'm only lvl 20 So what's the deal ? I wait for your newsletter to mail me "Hey dude Monsters, whatever the leader, are OP now ! Comeback you'll finaly enjoy play this game"

[EDIT2] no answer, great pleasure. i must be a liar

 

[Theodrik]

I'm a bit confused by this description from the Gwent website: "Representing the combined forces of Temeria, Redania and Kaedwen, the Northern Realms are proud kingdoms, united by their desire for independence. With near unmatched numbers and some of the deadliest engines of war, they are truly a force to be reckoned with." I always thought that Nilfgaard was at least twice as large as the entire North combined in terms of size, population, army size, etc. Is this purely in reference to the number of cards able to be deployed by the faction in terms of Gwent game mechanics or is the North actually bigger cumulatively in lore too?

There's nothing to be confused about the description. It's not comparing the Northern Kingdoms to Nilfgaard, but just praising their strength. Lorewise, Nilfgaard is larger, but it doesn't mean they can easily outmatch the Northern Kingdoms on the battlefield. In fact if the Northern Kingdoms had put their differences aside and decided to work completely united, it would be almost impossible for Nilfgaard to win a war against them. Some interesting insights on the subject: Northern Wars.

 

[floopman]

There's nothing to be confused about the description. It's not comparing the Northern Kingdoms to Nilfgaard, but just praising their strength. Lorewise, Nilfgaard is larger, but it doesn't mean they can easily outmatch the Northern Kingdoms on the battlefield. In fact if the Northern Kingdoms had put their differences aside and decided to work completely united, it would be almost impossible for Nilfgaard to win a war against them. Some interesting insights on the subject: Northern Wars.

Why would it be impossible? Nilfgaard is twice as large as all the North put together in terms of army size, population, territory, etc. Even united, the odds are stacked very heavily against them in even resisting Nilfgaard (i.e. the "miracle at Brenna"). The prospect of the North attacking and taking land from Nilfgaard rather than simply defending their side of the Yaruga would be insane and is never even considered, to my knowledge.

 

[Theodrik]

Why would it be impossible?

Even struggling with political differences, a very divided region and finances they managed to stop Nilfgaard advances during the 1st invastion on the Battle of Sodden Hill, and although they lost territory, they won the war. During the 2nd invasion they won again during the Battle of Brenna, and even conducted a counter-attack maneuver regaining the territories of Verden, Brugge, Sodden, Aedirn and Lyria. In short, Nilfgaard lost both wars.

That was from from books. Now if you played TW3, you might know that...

Spoiler

...If either Dijkstra or Radovid rules the north, they win the war again during the 3rd Nilfgaard invasion. Not only that, but Emhyr gets assassinated and replaced my Morvran Voorhis.

 

[floopman]

Even struggling with political differences, a very divided region and finances they managed to stop Nilfgaard advances during the 1st invastion on the Battle of Sodden Hill, and although they lost territory, they won the war. During the 2nd invasion they won again during the Battle of Brenna, and even conducted a counter-attack maneuver regaining the territories of Verden, Brugge, Sodden, Aedirn and Lyria. In short, Nilfgaard lost both wars.

That was from from books. Now if you played TW3, you might know that...

Spoiler

...If either Dijkstra or Radovid rules the north, they win the war again during the 3rd Nilfgaard invasion. Not only that, but Emhyr gets assassinated and replaced my Morvran Voorhis.

Clearly it's very possible for the North to repel Nilfgaard, but even best case scenario (everybody is united and strong) they are still clearly the underdogs by a long-shot.

 

[Theodrik]

That is your own personal thought on the matter. Nilfgaard is an empire with a big territory true, but not all of it is trully loyal to them, many were conquered and eager for independence. The empire is filled with rebelions and guerrillas fighting against it from within. The military strength of Nilfgaard was only possible due to the support from the Merchant Corporations that were funding it. After losing the first 2 wars, Emhyr lost this support, because they sensed they weren't getting anywhere. Clearly the empire started to break.

 

[devivre]

Mill might soon become a thing of the past, wait for the patch

I like the sound of that

 

[4RM3D]

Mill might soon become a thing of the past, wait for the patch

This makes me curious as to what will happen when you run out of cards. Or maybe it's just the mill archetype that can no longer be viable?

 

[DormiloN]

Hi everyone. First of all sorry about my english.

Now my question. When you add some base strength to Slave Infantry, and then play this, lets say 9 strength, unit from your hand is spawning copies not of itself, but 3 strength copies. Is this the way that the card should be working?? And if it is, shouldnt then the text printed be changed?

Thanks

 

[4RM3D]

DormiloN

Hi and welcome. Slave Infantry spawns a base copy of itself, no matter which buffs or strengthening effects it has. It's the way it should work, although it could be clarified more.

 

[dgabor82]

May I ask, why shieldmaiden got nerfed this much (now it doesn't have any synergy and only a 9 power for nothing) and why cannot we mill for the full dust a lot of cards that were clearly nerfed?

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Do we have to craft the new leaders? I don't see any new challenges to get them. Playing on console.

 

[ZarasTM]

Hi
I dont know if it's bug or planned action but after christmas update I found out that Nilfgaard's spotter doesn't work as it used to. When I revealed my golden Geralt I couldn't use him to boost spotter he was just ignored. I lost my ranked game but that's not the problem my deck havily relied on this card. Am I supposted to change deck or is it just a bug that is going to be fixed?

 

[4RM3D]

ZarasTM

It's not a bug. The change is listed in the patch notes:

Spotter can no longer target Gold units.

 

[cajsoccer]

Are you know something about witcher lore except third game? It is not just cards with numbers and descriptions, there is some lore, and when you placing Yen in Nilfgaard is like worst mistake that can be made. During first war with nilfs she was in the Battle of Sodden Hill seriously risking her life to protect Northern Kingdoms from Nilfgaard, lots of her friends-mages died there, including Coral. In the game she was working with Emhyr only to find Ciri, it was very clearly pointed up in the dialogues, especially if to provoke her with it. So she was rather a "spy" in the terms of gwent in this situation. But you placing her to fight FOR Nilfgaard, like she is betraying those who died fighting together with her at Sodden Hill. There is no any logic in this, maybe these kids who only played Witcher 3 before Gwent dosen't care, but for anyone who read the books it is not acceptable. I personally read books in 90s, played each Witcher game, and in the same way was playing ccgs since 90s, starting from MtG, a paper one, but I will not play Gwent again if its developers can messed up with lore so much, back to HS, at least it's fun.

She was originally an advisor to Demavend of Aedirn, but during the 3rd War she becomes Emhyr's court sorceress and serves Nilfgaard. Her situation is sorta similar to that of the Bloody Baron, the Temerian soldier who formed the militia to rule Velen on behalf of Nilfgaard after the Temerian Army disintegrated. But he is listed as a Northern Realms unit, so I guess you do have a bit of a point in terms of consistency. I really don't see how this is such a huge deal or ruins the game though because she did serve officially in Emhyr's court. Similarly I thought it was kinda weird that they made Hubert Rejk a Northern Realms unit when he's just some random vampire that murders people in Novigrad. Seems more suitable to be in the monsters deck.

 

[4RM3D]

cajsoccer

Your post has been moved to the discussions thread, because the other one is only for asking questions. Please, continue the discussion here.

 

[Delivor]

She was originally an advisor to Demavend of Aedirn, but during the 3rd War she becomes Emhyr's court sorceress and serves Nilfgaard. Her situation is sorta similar to that of the Bloody Baron, the Temerian soldier who formed the militia to rule Velen on behalf of Nilfgaard after the Temerian Army disintegrated. But he is listed as a Northern Realms unit, so I guess you do have a bit of a point in terms of consistency. I really don't see how this is such a huge deal or ruins the game though because she did serve officially in Emhyr's court. Similarly I thought it was kinda weird that they made Hubert Rejk a Northern Realms unit when he's just some random vampire that murders people in Novigrad. Seems more suitable to be in the monsters deck.

There is even some difference: Yen was "serving" Nilfgaard only to find Ciri, she can drop it off any minute, which would be not so easy for Bloody Baron. Geralt is actually doing the same thing in Witcher 3: he works for Emhyr at support of Nilfgaard, using even their secret service, there are no any differences between his and Yen's situations. Will they put Geralt's version in Nilfgaard next time? There was a perfect sense in placing two previous versions of Yen in neutral cards. But now we have 2 neutral Yens and 1 nilf, no any logic here. Your example with Rejk only confirms that Gwent's devs don't care about lore too much, but this is a lore-dependent game, nobody would play it if it would be just cards with numbers, so it clearly moves in wrong direction, that's not for me.

 

[gilbertanna12]

Hello to everyone and sorry for my bad english, it isn't my first language!
Here my question. Why after the midwinter update, near my Xbox gamertag appear the sign [MISSING] In the sections of leaderbords?
What it means?
Thank you for your reply and good Morning!!