Gwent Strategy Articles

+
Balance Progress: My Perceptions on Gwentfinity



As we approach the final six months of significant developer support for Gwent, I, like many other players, am concerned about the state in which the game will be left. In this article, I would like to discuss what I perceive as top balance priorities for this period, I would like to discuss the approach I believe developers are used to select card changes, and finally to consider how the developer’s approach to patches might be modified to better achieve important goals.



Balance Goals:

Because balance can mean many different things, I will not state balance as a goal. Each of the goals I have listed is “balance” by some interpretation. I will also state that these are the goals I would offer for the game; I believe they reflect the concerns of many in the community, but they are subjective. I have also ordered them from highest to lowest as I see them.

  • Avoid overpowered cards/combos/archetypes/factions. By overpowered, I simply mean play dominating (able to defeat almost any opposition or outperform almost any alternative in almost any situation).
  • Increase the importance of playing well in determining match outcome. This has two primary components. A large percentage of games are basically decided before a single card is played based upon the matchup or the coin flip. Often problems arise because of how decks balance incredible tempo, overwhelming point generation, dominating removal, and uninteractivity which result in insurmountable rock-paper-scissors effects. The second major issue arises through draw order when a player either doesn’t hold key cards when needed or a player fails to draw a significant proportion of the deck potential.
  • Improve variety in both viable decks (and deck components) and in how decks are played. For the game to survive, it must remain fresh. If there are no new cards, it stays fresh by encountering more of the old cards in previously unseen ways. Players must be able to create new ideas and experience new creations of others; this creativity can occur in how cards are combined or how they are used. But it begins with us not seeing the same cards played in the same contexts over and over and over.
  • Better promote strategic play. Some types of cards are extremely predictable – they have basically one way of being played. Some cards present interesting tactical and strategic options. The latter are highly preferable. And there is a difference between being interesting in deck design and in play. But deck design challenges, once solved, remain solved while play challenges change with every circumstance; the latter are most important in sustaining an interesting game.


Perceived Developer Approach to Balance:

I am not a developer; I have no channel to the developers that makes me more informed than the typical player. The following are my perceptions based upon developer comments, observed changes (and failure to make changes), comments by others who might be in positions to know, and common sense. I believe the following to be true of developer patch decisions.

  • Patch decisions are evidence based – but that evidence may not be the evidence I would wish them to consider. Developers clearly use win-rates of decks (although the “deck” might be assumed by the leader ability chosen) and use frequency (of both cards and decks). Cards core to poorly performing decks are almost never nerfed no matter how vehement the complaints or convincing the theoretical argument for changing them. To be fair, I think there are lot of invalid complaints, and I think that nerfing cards should not be taken lightly as it is unfair to those who commit valued resources to crafting the card and building around it.
  • Balance seems focused on the deck/archetype level – not faction level, not card level. Sometimes fairly balanced cards have been nerfed to address an overperforming deck and sometimes problematic cards are buffed because the deck where they appear is underperforming.
  • Balance is generally handled conservatively; underkill is far more common than overkill and most overkill only occurs after previous failed attempts at balance.
  • Balancing sems to be based primarily upon wins and loses and occasionally upon where a card is used (archetype fit). It is almost never based upon how cards impact play (such as being binary, encouraging generally poor strategies, etc.).
  • Balances rarely use suggestions (even good suggestions) from the community. My perception is that the development team has been very possessive regarding creative control.
  • Balance focus has significantly changed in the past year or so. Power creep has been significantly reduced. Changes between card drops have become more game altering and almost always give a new (or revitalized) archetype to try. Even with this change in focus, the meta is very narrow and meaningful variety within meta decks is minimal.


Successes and Failures of Current Balance Approach:

Although I try to be as unbiased as possible, this will obviously be a subjective analysis.



I think the big success of the last year of patches has been successfully avoiding/addressing overpowered cards, archetypes, and factions. Certainly not everything is equal and there are several decks I hate to encounter. But I do note that every faction has something that is playable (able to occasionally compete with meta decks), most factions are brought by at least some pros to tournaments, no faction seems to dominate wins on either ladder or in tournaments. Decks that evidence shows are too dominant are generally addressed, although not always aggressively enough. This is less true of overpowered cards – sometimes it seems developers nerf around problematic cards rather than dealing directly with the problems. Or they ignore problematic cards if they only play in decks that perform poorly. Even so, I can think of no card that is so strong as to be included even in decks where it doesn’t fit. There is no card from any faction included in virtually every deck of that faction.



I think the variety of playable cards and decks has been improving – but at a rate that is far too slow. Most factions have multiple playable archetypes (not necessarily good, but usable alternatives). The one exception is Syndicate which seems to be highly dependent upon bounty packages if not the bounty archetype. Excluding Syndicate, we are still talking about having a viable choice of maybe three deck ideas per faction, and not all of these are nearly equal. I would argue that a (significantly unique) viable deck corresponding to each leader is the minimum that should be accepted – and ideally, there should be multiple viable substantive variants within each archetype. I think we also have more cards that are possible, but many card swaps do not seem impactful on deck play or feel.



On the other hand, variety of creative play is being crushed. Formerly strategic decisions become irrelevant considering tremendous point spam and binary, remove-or-lose cards. Some strategically interesting abilities have been replaced by mundane, almost inert cards that might be interesting in deckbuilding, but not in play. Every viable deck must generate huge points, have massive removal, or both. And so many cards have such incredible tempo that strategic options are generally very limited.



And that takes us to what I perceive as the major failure of the last 2 years of patches. Good play has become almost irrelevant to success in the game. Good decks have become too much better than bad decks. Good draws have become too much better than bad draws. Matchup luck is decisive: huge engine value demands massive removal; massive removal demands playing for immediate pay-off. Immediate payoff must be outpointed, e.g., by massive engines. Reacting to opponent’s cards is boring because it is either obvious or impossible. Try to imagine the game without its 30 most insane cards – no Fucusya, Simlas, Saskia, Reavers, Autaud, Skellen, Compass, Mutagenerator, Nekker, Dana, Renfri, Koshchey, Sigvald, etc., etc. If there are utterly dominating cards, nothing else will matter. Play is about playing good cards, not about playing wisely. Variety is nonexistent. Who cares about a Wolf Pack? The problem is that there aren’t just 30 problem cards – there are well in the hundreds. Nerf one and another crops up but nerfing them all is an impossible undertaking.



What can feasibly be done? I will address that next.



Suggestions:

  • Avoid, and, as possible, fix binary dynamics. I recall developer comments about why Drakenborg was not immediately nerfed – that playtesting had revealed it could be defeated, not just with Heatwave, but also with all-in engine or all-in removal decks – that it was mainly mid-range decks that struggled. The point here is that such observations should have been an immediate flag to nerf the card for being binary, not as evidence the card did not need a nerf! Evidence of binary dynamics is not hard to spot: cards/combos so powerful that matches are won or lost solely based upon the dynamic being drawn or counterable, decks that always win against certain opponents and always lose against another, dynamics that are “balanced” by their difficulty rather than general play, etc.
  • Continue to use evidence-based models to make buff/nerf decisions but broaden that evidence. Use card ceilings, floors, and likely values to assess card power. Consider not just the win-rate of decks, but the variability of that win-rate across different opposition. Do not assume all complaints about cards are based upon them winning too much; and even when the complaints are about a card being OP, before discounting them entirely, ask whether they are OP in certain situations that cannot be controlled by all opponents.
  • When cards are re-designed, focus on challenges in play. While there were on-going card drops, considerable excitement would arise as players tried new deck ideas using the new cards – challenges in deck building were valuable as well. But as support concludes, deck building challenges are not nearly as persistent as play challenges.
  • Interesting play requires meaningful back and forth between players. Avoid powerful, essentially inert cards (e.g. Simlas, whose value is usually distributed over a variety of cards and cannot usually be significantly impacted by any actions of typical opponents). Interesting play usually centers around cards that have interesting effects based upon interesting and mutually impactable games states. Things like Heatwave (which effectively immediately deletes a card), no matter how important to game balance, are inimical to interesting game play. Powerful engines that always must be removed are not interesting. Removal engines that eliminate interactive elements from the board are not fun. The best cards are cards that allow in-game decisions, whether short-term tactical or long-term strategic. The best cards rely on interactivity – they don’t remove it. Archetypes based on several mid-powered cards are far more interesting than those that rely on one high-powered card; they require adaptation depending upon draw order, and they are less binary when a key card is undrawn. Rather than just criticizing, let me examine a couple of cards I really like. Casimir is a potential 3-point-per-turn removal engine. On paper he, has two elements I am very wary of: excessive engine value and removal engine value. He is still a fine card because that engine value is worth fighting over, is easily disrupted in multiple ways (tall removal, purify and lock, not having opportunity to spend to zero, not having opportunity to earn coins, not having meaningful targets for explosives, or being forced into short rounds where engine value is less significant). Vanilla Ciri is also very fun. She can be countered by lock or removal; timing her play is tricky, but she can dramatically change the strategic completion of the game.
  • Ask, as I have here, what the most significant remaining issues in Gwent are – why they arise, and how they can be addressed. Don’t be locked into a preset agenda. I hope this article gives a start – but I am one person with one person’s unique perspective and biases.
 
What Can Be Done About Neutral Cards?

Introduction

I believe neutral cards are core to stabilizing the long-term prospects of Gwent. With limited time and resources to make extensive changes to the game, adjusting cards available to all factions can have the most impact. But extreme care must be used – if neutral cards become strong on their own, they get incorporated into every deck and variety disappears – not only does every faction have only one deck, but all factions have the same deck! On the other hand, if neutral cards uniquely enhance every faction in different ways, changes in neutral cards can potentially change the viability of multiple decks.

But for neutral cards to benefit the game, certain baseline criteria must be met:
  • Neutral cards should never override the faction feel. If factional identity of decks is not preserved, variety in the game is harmfully diminished.
  • Neutral cards should be an option, not a requirement. Most players do not want to see the same cards every match. When neutral cards become auto-include, we see the same cards repeatedly.
  • Neutral cards should be neutral. If a card can only benefit one faction it should belong to that faction. Neutral cards can only benefit factions that have cause to play them.
I will further discuss these criteria as I discuss specific ideas to enhance neutral cards.

As I see it, there are three potential, reasonable roles for neutral cards: 1. to provide useful support tech for any possible deck 2. to create new, distinct archetypes within multiple factions. 3. to enable potentially match-altering strategic considerations.

Let me comment on each of these in turn.

Neutrals as Support Tech

I think this is the most perceived (and accepted) role for neutral cards. Classical examples include:
  • removal support (e.g., Alzur’s Thunder, Bekker’s Rockslide, Lacerate)
  • tall punish (e.g. Geralt [of Rivia], Curse of Corruption, Villentretenmerth)
  • graveyard hate (squirrel, Xavier Lemmens)
  • consistency (e.g. Land of a Thousand Fables, Royal Decree, Alzur’s Double -Cross, Roach)
  • replay (e.g., Renew, Necromancy, Decoy)
  • unit support (e.g. Wagenburg, Pact, Watchman, Petri’s Philter)
  • strategic enhancement (e.g. Ciri, Matta Hu’uri, Phoenix)
  • engine support (e.g., Eskel: Pathfinder, Yennifer: Conjurer, Jonny, Iron Falcon Infantry)
  • locks (e.g., Dorregaray, Dimeritium Shackles)
  • purify (e.g. Peller)
Etc.

But problems arise when the support tech becomes too strong, too essential, too binary, and/or too specialized. This has definitely occurred. Unfortunately, in some cases (Heatwave, Oneiromancy), the cards are so embedded in basic game balance that substantive change at this point is not feasible. Removing Heatwave, for example, would require changing on the order of 100 excessively powered cards it helps check. But even some of these cards could be modified without destroying the game. And others (e.g., Idarran, Operator) are easily changed if it can be recognized that they are problems. I think a lot of impact can be made by addressing a small handful of “tech” support cards that have become problematic. Here are some suggestions:
  • Heatwave – Heatwave is unfortunately critical to game balance – and this cannot be feasibly changed. But it can be improved by making it less all-purpose and hence less auto-include. I suggest replacing it with two cards, one that banishes any unit, one that removes any gold card. Players then can choose either artifact removal or banishment (or both at a cost) in an almost always useful card, but they can’t have both in the same card.
  • Idarran – simply change the ability. When Idarran was released, he was fine – there were very few non-token targets, and replicating tokens is not a problem. But too many cards now spawn units with meaningful abilities and Idarran has become very binary – in many instances, a remove-or-lose card. Perhaps locking the spawned cards would suffice, but certain cards (e.g. Cintrian Royal Guard) have value in their tag which is not affected by locks.
  • Operator – Operator is a major meme card; he is also a major contributor to unpleasant and binary play. He contributes to the excessive copying of cards which exacerbates any small imbalances those cards may have as well as exploiting cards that grow in value with greater numbers. He contributes to a need for heavy removal (which decreases the tactical excitement of a game because it leaves less on the board to interact with) by creating additional copies of remove-or-lose cards like Fleders and Messenger of the Sea. And he is particularly biased toward Nilfgaard because NG can exploit the presence of desired bronzes on the opponent’s board or in the graveyard to make as many as eight additional copies. Losing Operator would undoubtedly cost some interesting decks, but it would remove a lot of unbearable decks as well.
  • Garrison – Extra copies of several engine bronze soldier engines – especially removal engines (Redanian Archer, Ard Feainn Light Cavalry, Ard Feainn Crossbowman, Lyrian Arbalest, Alba Pikeman, Reaver Hunters) and cards that duplicate these bronze engines (Reaver Scout, Slave Driver) – are ruining the game experience. Changing Garrison’s deploy ability would not fix the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.
  • Aerondight – Aerondight not only is very coinflip binary, it supports poor (overcommitment based) game play. It does not need “fixing”; it needs replacing. It could be the supplementary, tall punish complement I suggested for Heatwave.
  • Dandelion: Vainglory – Because powerful beasts are not a mainstay of Gwent play, this card only has reasonably certain value if you can somehow “give” your opponent a powerful beast – and at present, only SK can do so. This should either be an SK card, should be changed, or other factions need means to utilize it (e.g. a card which could give a beast tag to an enemy)
  • Ihuarraquax – Undoubtedly, Ihuarraquax is very binary – but it is binary because too many existing decks are binary and depend upon overly-powered, on-deploy powers. Because I see no way to feasibly address the dozens of ridiculously powered on-deploy cards, I find Ihuaraquax, like Heatwave, an essential if unfortunate balancing card. If it could be replaced by an on-deploy ability blocker that was more consistent, I would certainly be in favor, but I can see no way to do that without significant structural changes to the game.
  • Alissa Henson – Another card that facilitates copying of cards which makes otherwise balanced cards imbalanced. Presently, she seems to only play effectively with Simlas, which also renders her not really a neutral card. Alissa is, however, far from the worst of the neutral cards, and I would prefer to see her addressed by addressing the cards that guarantee ability to play the cards she returns to deck.
  • Xavier Lemmens/Squirrel – I am bothered by cards that are absolutely necessary for some matchups and useless in others, but, as with Ihuarraquax, I am bothered more by the mechanisms that encourage them (OP echo cards and OP graveyard access) than by the cards themselves.
  • Spring Equinox – A card only useful in ST which is also slightly overpowered. But the problem is badly exacerbated by the ease of repeatedly replaying it.
  • Megascope – More dangerous and unnecessary “copying” power. I don’t see this card as especially bad (largely due to its low tempo), but most of its contribution to the game I would describe as negative.
In addition to changing the abusive neutral cards, I think there is room for tech cards that presently don’t exist. Some examples are:
  • Tutors specifically for inconsistent tech categories. There are certain types of cards that often have no use in a round: graveyard hate, purify, movement, etc., and that are very undesirable to hold in hand when not needed. Cards that could be critical, but could also be virtually worthless and that don’t merit committing an expensive, general-purpose tutor like Oneiromancy. Why not something like a 5 or 6 provision special “Play a four-provision neutral card of your choice.” That way you can have emergency protection against defender or graveyard effects without needing to dedicate specific deck or hand space to that protection.
  • Tech against special cards. Something like: “timer 1, while this timer is active, no special cards played will have any effect”.
  • Tech against row effects. There are many options: cards that transmute row effects, cards that shorten row effects, cards that move row effects, cards that reduce damage of row effects, cards that temporarily prevent application of new row effects, etc.
  • Tech against spawning. For example, “the next spawn of a non-token card fails”.
  • Tech against over-spawning. For example, “remove three allied cards with a status, then play your top card”.
The goal is not to create super-powered counters, just modest options for decks willing to take them.

Neutral Archetypes:

Reception for neutral archetypes is more controversial. Again, there is risk. If a purely neutral deck is fully meta quality, there is no reason to play anything else. And if it is even slightly OP, almost nothing else will ever be played. Diversity of play vanishes. But I believe there is space for “neutral archetypes” that do not stand on their own, but that contribute uniquely to exiting factions while preserving the faction feel. Done right, this type of neutral archetype can enhance variety of decks more than an equivalent number of faction cards would. Some neutral archetypes already exist; few are truly effective – but they could be. By the way, I am using the word “archetype” very loosely here – I am also including everything that might better be described as card packages, deck restrictions, play styles, and win conditions. I have identified the following existing (or potential) neutral “archetypes”: Dragons, Bandits (bonded), Witchers, Construct, Bomb, Cursed, Weather, Armor, and deck-restriction. Let me examine each.
  • Witchers – The neutral support for witchers is very nice. Some (like most Ciri and Geralt cards) are useful tech for any deck, some (like Quen or Vessimir cards) are excellent support for faction based Witcher decks. Neutral Witchers are quite varied, but are not deck defining. And there are enough of them that Witcher archetypes can be varied in how they draw neutral support. Witchers are not currently meta, but are sufficiently viable that community balance may suffice. If not, focus should probably be on the bronze factional witcher cards.
  • Bandits – There is also good neutral support for faction-based Bandit archetypes. But unless factional bonded units are increased in number and usefulness, the Bandit archetype will never come to fruition. Moreover, with no real win conditions with bandit cards, the archetype will not impart much unique feel. Let’s take this faction by faction. Monsters has 3 bonded units (Harpies, Lesser Witches and Plumards). The first two are commonly used, and the third is decent. There are no bandits. And all bonded units play in different archetypes – there is no cohesion in playing them together – hence no MO bandit decks. NG has only one bonded unit (Illusionist) and no bandits. This may seem insufficient to play a bandit archetype in NG, but thanks to NG’s extensive ability to copy opponent’s cards, I have seen some Operator based memes that could be considered Bandit decks. It would take relatively little addition to make NG bandits viable. NR has 4 bonded units (Reaver Hunter, Cintrian Enchantress, Poor Fucking Infantry, and Meditating Mage) and 1 Bandit (Kerack Cutthroat). Only Reaver Hunter is enticing to play and it is broken. Not only is there no viable NR bandit archetype, the Bandit support is exploited to copy an already excessively copied card. SY has 23 bandit cards (and another 3 bonded cards). One could argue that near meta quality ST bandit decks exist, but one would never realize it because they have no “Bandit” feel. It exists without and despite neutral Bandits. Basically, none of the ST bandits benefit from neutral bandits and many (elves) are anti-synergistic with neutral bandits. And none of the bonded ST units are played (except as a lesser evil in a low-rolled create effect). True ST Bandits are not viable. SK has two bonded cards (Little Havfrue and Crow Clan Preacher) and no bandits. Both bonded cards are very good and can play together. Moreover, neutral bandits can give both cards support. Unfortunately, Havfrue is pretty much only a support card itself – there is little reason to take deck space to support it. Preacher can effectively utilize Troubador, but other bandits waste deck space. I have a viable Troubador/Preacher deck (which works thanks to Mahakam Ale’s Alchemy tag), but despite hinging on Troubadors for competitiveness, it has no real bandit feel. However, it does illustrate how a neutral mechanic opens new faction options. SY has 4 bonded cards (Sly Seductress, Cutup Lackey, Savvy Huckster, Begger). The first two play in different archetypes, the last two are marginal to play – even if played for the bonded ability, there is nothing great going to happen. Again, Bandits contribute nothing to SY. Bandits have great potential – but require better factional bonded cards that work to generate win cons that would not work without the bandits.
  • Dragons – Dragons are another interesting Neutral card package that almost works – but that has some significant downfalls. It is great to see dragons restored as mighty and magnificent creatures. And some dragon decks appear decent. But there are major barriers to dragons being a type of neutral package uniquely enhancing each faction. First, all dragons are very expensive. This is unavoidable given the nature of dragons, but it is important to have enough provisions after taking dragons for each faction to be able to contribute a meaningful essence to the deck. Second, legacy triggers are critical for all neutral dragons to play for competitive value – it is hard to commit to one legacy dragon without committing to multiple dragons. But taking multiple dragons leaves few free provisions for other impactful cards. Third, dragons do nothing to enhance other cards. In a few instances, other cards enhance dragons, e.g., damage pings enhance Villentretenmirth, but no one plays a dragon for the sake of helping other cards. And fourth, only two factions even have dragons to contribute to a dragon archetype. Combine these effects, and dragons appear unlikely to significantly increase deck variety. The nature of the legacy effect virtually demands that the choice to include any dragon forces the inclusion of virtually all dragons – and including all dragons is so expensive that no other influential cards can be afforded. All dragon decks play the same key cards. And the inability of dragons to improve any faction-based cards ensures that dragons do not uniquely interact with each faction.
  • Bomb – An effective bomb archetype has evolved thanks to Madoc as a means to add value to bombs and Sappers as a means to both add value and tempo. But the problem is similar to that with Dragons – all key cards are neutral and have very little impact on any non-neutral cards so they all feel alike, regardless of home faction. Moreover, the archetype usually hinges upon making multiple copies of Madoc – possible only by two factions (NG and MO). And this is highly binary – Madoc being banished is almost always a lose condition. And finally, bomb decks are a type that shouldn’t be promoted – excessive removal and non-interactive focus make bomb decks tactically and strategically dull.
  • Cursed – Eltibald gives another possible win-condition to a cursed archetype, but he is not enough to breathe life into an archetype. Basically, no other card either gives support to or benefits from cursed cards. And Eltibald himself suffers from low tempo and depends very strongly upon procs from cursed cards to offset this. Because of the inconsistent ability for any faction to play meaningful cursed cards, he only works with Sir Scratch-a-Lot – which makes him both a binary and a fragile source of points. And only MO, NR, and SK have significant cursed cards to contribute to this archetype.
  • Weather – Weather can organically contribute to only SK and MO – no other factions really use row effects (except for an ST aberration viable by exploiting an over-powered Spring Equinox). The effects could be more impactful if more factions could reasonably exploit the cards available.
  • Armor – There are numerous neutral cards that manipulate armor in an interesting way – and nearly every faction has means to benefit from armor. But there just isn’t enough strength in armor to justify inclusion of the neutral cards. For this archetype to matter, we need more ways for factions to capitalize on manipulation of armor.
  • Deckbuilding Restrictions (no duplicates, all units, no high-provision cards, no four provision cards) – Players willing to accept a deck building restrictions gain access to nice neutral cards (Shupe’s Day Off and Radeyah or Renfri and Renfri’s gang, or Ciri: Nova and Golden Nekker or Musicians of Blaviken). These are not really archetypes, but they do allow every faction, by modifying typical deck-building, rewards (ability to use some nice powers) worth considering. Unfortunately, experience has shown balancing these “archetypes” is very tricky. But on the positive side, once balanced, these Neutral cards can blend in an interesting way with many existing decks. It is easy to bemoan the imbalance of a Golden Nekker, but it is not accurate to assess all Nekker decks as “the same” – it plays very different cards depending upon faction it is played in. I think the problem with both Nekker and Renfri is that it puts too much power in a single card. I respect this as an approach to making a small number of bronze cards open a wide possible variety of decks, but I think the approach needs to be more subtle – smaller restrictions for smaller (but still significant) gains. Again, balancing restriction with benefits is critical. A card like Musicians alone will never justify its restriction.
In summary, I appreciate attempts at Neutral archetypes, but the process of effectively creating them has proven extremely difficult. I think time might be better spent on other changes.

Neutrals to Create Strategic Opportunities:

I have discovered several Neutral cards (many of them seldom played) have subtle, but significant impact on the game because they change its strategic complexion. I think they are often overlooked because their average return per provision is low without players realizing their impact on the game’s overall strategy. I have found including these cards very much alters how certain archetypes are played. Let me list a few examples. This is probably far from a complete list.
  • Ciri:Dash – Dash may be the best known of these cards, a significant contributor to the success of Keltulis decks before the nerf to Carapace, and a card with potential to swing card advantage.
  • Ciri (vanilla) – I think plain Ciri is often underestimated. It is not just her ability to impact card advantage; it is her ability to force hard decisions – such as giving up round control to avoid giving an opponent an extra card.
  • Matta Hu’uri – Matta has an often-unconsidered effect of lengthening the game. Playing an extra turn can be significant benefit to some decks.
  • Troll Porter – Although low tempo (unless played with Snowdrop), Troll Porter capsizes typical mulligan strategy.
  • Wagon – As an extremely cheap, easily implemented resilience unit (which is inefficient to remove), Wagon can strongly impact round control. If an opponent wins round one, a resilient unit often prevents an easy round 2 drypass.
  • Sunset Wanderers – Timing the deployment of this card impacts both card play order and willingness to keep playing in a round.
  • Musicians of Blaviken – Although I don’t think the card is worth the deck-building expence, extra round one tempo changes the complexion of many games.
  • Puzzle Box – A card that forces players to consider the value of pure point-slam is often very interesting.
  • Aerondight/Sihil – Not every strategy changing card is positive and these are two infamous examples. Changing strategy to promote poor play (such as encouraging over-commitment and greedy turns) does not benefit the game.
Although care must be used, I think there is room for neutral cards that alter round length, mulligan strategy or card play order. Cards that influence decisions on how deep to play in each round, that reward long-term thinking, are always welcome. Neutrals are often the fairest place for such cards, and strategy altering neutral cards are an underutilized way to add variety to play.

Conclusions:

I think neutral cards are often maligned as overplayed, over-powered crushers of originality. While there has been some historical truth to these objectios, I think they are also not only essential balancing agents, they are potentially able to generate more variety than any other change – and in a more equitable manner. I realize this article is undesirably long; I hope it establishes both the potential value of neutral cards and issues that must be avoided. As always, I invite you to share thoughts on this issue.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Balance Progress: My Perceptions on Gwentfinity



As we approach the final six months of significant developer support for Gwent, I, like many other players, am concerned about the state in which the game will be left. In this article, I would like to discuss what I perceive as top balance priorities for this period, I would like to discuss the approach I believe developers are used to select card changes, and finally to consider how the developer’s approach to patches might be modified to better achieve important goals.



Balance Goals:

Because balance can mean many different things, I will not state balance as a goal. Each of the goals I have listed is “balance” by some interpretation. I will also state that these are the goals I would offer for the game; I believe they reflect the concerns of many in the community, but they are subjective. I have also ordered them from highest to lowest as I see them.

  • Avoid overpowered cards/combos/archetypes/factions. By overpowered, I simply mean play dominating (able to defeat almost any opposition or outperform almost any alternative in almost any situation).
  • Increase the importance of playing well in determining match outcome. This has two primary components. A large percentage of games are basically decided before a single card is played based upon the matchup or the coin flip. Often problems arise because of how decks balance incredible tempo, overwhelming point generation, dominating removal, and uninteractivity which result in insurmountable rock-paper-scissors effects. The second major issue arises through draw order when a player either doesn’t hold key cards when needed or a player fails to draw a significant proportion of the deck potential.
  • Improve variety in both viable decks (and deck components) and in how decks are played. For the game to survive, it must remain fresh. If there are no new cards, it stays fresh by encountering more of the old cards in previously unseen ways. Players must be able to create new ideas and experience new creations of others; this creativity can occur in how cards are combined or how they are used. But it begins with us not seeing the same cards played in the same contexts over and over and over.
  • Better promote strategic play. Some types of cards are extremely predictable – they have basically one way of being played. Some cards present interesting tactical and strategic options. The latter are highly preferable. And there is a difference between being interesting in deck design and in play. But deck design challenges, once solved, remain solved while play challenges change with every circumstance; the latter are most important in sustaining an interesting game.


Perceived Developer Approach to Balance:

I am not a developer; I have no channel to the developers that makes me more informed than the typical player. The following are my perceptions based upon developer comments, observed changes (and failure to make changes), comments by others who might be in positions to know, and common sense. I believe the following to be true of developer patch decisions.

  • Patch decisions are evidence based – but that evidence may not be the evidence I would wish them to consider. Developers clearly use win-rates of decks (although the “deck” might be assumed by the leader ability chosen) and use frequency (of both cards and decks). Cards core to poorly performing decks are almost never nerfed no matter how vehement the complaints or convincing the theoretical argument for changing them. To be fair, I think there are lot of invalid complaints, and I think that nerfing cards should not be taken lightly as it is unfair to those who commit valued resources to crafting the card and building around it.
  • Balance seems focused on the deck/archetype level – not faction level, not card level. Sometimes fairly balanced cards have been nerfed to address an overperforming deck and sometimes problematic cards are buffed because the deck where they appear is underperforming.
  • Balance is generally handled conservatively; underkill is far more common than overkill and most overkill only occurs after previous failed attempts at balance.
  • Balancing sems to be based primarily upon wins and loses and occasionally upon where a card is used (archetype fit). It is almost never based upon how cards impact play (such as being binary, encouraging generally poor strategies, etc.).
  • Balances rarely use suggestions (even good suggestions) from the community. My perception is that the development team has been very possessive regarding creative control.
  • Balance focus has significantly changed in the past year or so. Power creep has been significantly reduced. Changes between card drops have become more game altering and almost always give a new (or revitalized) archetype to try. Even with this change in focus, the meta is very narrow and meaningful variety within meta decks is minimal.


Successes and Failures of Current Balance Approach:

Although I try to be as unbiased as possible, this will obviously be a subjective analysis.



I think the big success of the last year of patches has been successfully avoiding/addressing overpowered cards, archetypes, and factions. Certainly not everything is equal and there are several decks I hate to encounter. But I do note that every faction has something that is playable (able to occasionally compete with meta decks), most factions are brought by at least some pros to tournaments, no faction seems to dominate wins on either ladder or in tournaments. Decks that evidence shows are too dominant are generally addressed, although not always aggressively enough. This is less true of overpowered cards – sometimes it seems developers nerf around problematic cards rather than dealing directly with the problems. Or they ignore problematic cards if they only play in decks that perform poorly. Even so, I can think of no card that is so strong as to be included even in decks where it doesn’t fit. There is no card from any faction included in virtually every deck of that faction.



I think the variety of playable cards and decks has been improving – but at a rate that is far too slow. Most factions have multiple playable archetypes (not necessarily good, but usable alternatives). The one exception is Syndicate which seems to be highly dependent upon bounty packages if not the bounty archetype. Excluding Syndicate, we are still talking about having a viable choice of maybe three deck ideas per faction, and not all of these are nearly equal. I would argue that a (significantly unique) viable deck corresponding to each leader is the minimum that should be accepted – and ideally, there should be multiple viable substantive variants within each archetype. I think we also have more cards that are possible, but many card swaps do not seem impactful on deck play or feel.



On the other hand, variety of creative play is being crushed. Formerly strategic decisions become irrelevant considering tremendous point spam and binary, remove-or-lose cards. Some strategically interesting abilities have been replaced by mundane, almost inert cards that might be interesting in deckbuilding, but not in play. Every viable deck must generate huge points, have massive removal, or both. And so many cards have such incredible tempo that strategic options are generally very limited.



And that takes us to what I perceive as the major failure of the last 2 years of patches. Good play has become almost irrelevant to success in the game. Good decks have become too much better than bad decks. Good draws have become too much better than bad draws. Matchup luck is decisive: huge engine value demands massive removal; massive removal demands playing for immediate pay-off. Immediate payoff must be outpointed, e.g., by massive engines. Reacting to opponent’s cards is boring because it is either obvious or impossible. Try to imagine the game without its 30 most insane cards – no Fucusya, Simlas, Saskia, Reavers, Autaud, Skellen, Compass, Mutagenerator, Nekker, Dana, Renfri, Koshchey, Sigvald, etc., etc. If there are utterly dominating cards, nothing else will matter. Play is about playing good cards, not about playing wisely. Variety is nonexistent. Who cares about a Wolf Pack? The problem is that there aren’t just 30 problem cards – there are well in the hundreds. Nerf one and another crops up but nerfing them all is an impossible undertaking.



What can feasibly be done? I will address that next.



Suggestions:

  • Avoid, and, as possible, fix binary dynamics. I recall developer comments about why Drakenborg was not immediately nerfed – that playtesting had revealed it could be defeated, not just with Heatwave, but also with all-in engine or all-in removal decks – that it was mainly mid-range decks that struggled. The point here is that such observations should have been an immediate flag to nerf the card for being binary, not as evidence the card did not need a nerf! Evidence of binary dynamics is not hard to spot: cards/combos so powerful that matches are won or lost solely based upon the dynamic being drawn or counterable, decks that always win against certain opponents and always lose against another, dynamics that are “balanced” by their difficulty rather than general play, etc.
  • Continue to use evidence-based models to make buff/nerf decisions but broaden that evidence. Use card ceilings, floors, and likely values to assess card power. Consider not just the win-rate of decks, but the variability of that win-rate across different opposition. Do not assume all complaints about cards are based upon them winning too much; and even when the complaints are about a card being OP, before discounting them entirely, ask whether they are OP in certain situations that cannot be controlled by all opponents.
  • When cards are re-designed, focus on challenges in play. While there were on-going card drops, considerable excitement would arise as players tried new deck ideas using the new cards – challenges in deck building were valuable as well. But as support concludes, deck building challenges are not nearly as persistent as play challenges.
  • Interesting play requires meaningful back and forth between players. Avoid powerful, essentially inert cards (e.g. Simlas, whose value is usually distributed over a variety of cards and cannot usually be significantly impacted by any actions of typical opponents). Interesting play usually centers around cards that have interesting effects based upon interesting and mutually impactable games states. Things like Heatwave (which effectively immediately deletes a card), no matter how important to game balance, are inimical to interesting game play. Powerful engines that always must be removed are not interesting. Removal engines that eliminate interactive elements from the board are not fun. The best cards are cards that allow in-game decisions, whether short-term tactical or long-term strategic. The best cards rely on interactivity – they don’t remove it. Archetypes based on several mid-powered cards are far more interesting than those that rely on one high-powered card; they require adaptation depending upon draw order, and they are less binary when a key card is undrawn. Rather than just criticizing, let me examine a couple of cards I really like. Casimir is a potential 3-point-per-turn removal engine. On paper he, has two elements I am very wary of: excessive engine value and removal engine value. He is still a fine card because that engine value is worth fighting over, is easily disrupted in multiple ways (tall removal, purify and lock, not having opportunity to spend to zero, not having opportunity to earn coins, not having meaningful targets for explosives, or being forced into short rounds where engine value is less significant). Vanilla Ciri is also very fun. She can be countered by lock or removal; timing her play is tricky, but she can dramatically change the strategic completion of the game.
  • Ask, as I have here, what the most significant remaining issues in Gwent are – why they arise, and how they can be addressed. Don’t be locked into a preset agenda. I hope this article gives a start – but I am one person with one person’s unique perspective and biases.
Hey quinti, hope you're doing well. Congratulations on you Gwent Partner status acquisition, its well deserved.
Me, i am still away from playing Gwent, although i still play Rogue Mage on my phone, trying to finish the last couple of BS random-based achievments. And i do occasionally watch some gwent videos or streams, i recently watched some tournament, cast (unoficially?) by Moshcraft, i was pleased to see some new decks/ archetypes i wasnt even able to figure out how they work.

Regarding your post, i can support most of your analysis, and appreciate your efforts and suggestions, but i maintain my skepticism: the Gwent developers failed to achieve any of the goals you listed in the 6 years i played their game, when they supposedly had a full team, its unlikely it will be on the next 6 months that they will achieve some miraculous improvement on their project.

And Project Gwentfinity gets no faith from me either. The whole 'power to the players' thing should have been implemented a long time ago, in a way where the devs and its playerbase cooperated together to create the game (almost) everyone would be happy to play. Instead, we had each of the parties involved having a turn at controling the direction of Gwent, and its unlikely the players left will have enough room for changes to save the game. (Sorry for bringing back the negativity too, it was either that or silence :shrug: )
 
Playing at Rank 25: Suggestions for Beginning Players

Because I strongly prefer unranked (practice mode) matches over playing ranked matches, my Gwent rank has dropped as far as possible (to rank 25). But the new reward cycle is forcing me to play ranked. I am thus encountering a lot of relative beginners – which in turn, allows me to observe, first-hand, a lot of common errors. In this article, I hope to address the most egregious. Incidentally, I often see these errors in more advanced play as well.

#1. Overcommitting:

Over-commitment is the act of expending more valuable cards than are needed to win a round, and it is both the most common and probably the most serious error I see most players make. Take a simple example: both you and your opponent have 100 points in the cards you will be able to play. If you win the first round 60-40, your opponent now has 1.5 times as many points remaining as you do – you will find it very hard to win either of the remaining rounds.

If you are winning round 1 by 30 or more points, you are not demolishing your opponent; odds are that you are losing! Saving good cards for situations where they make a difference is THE most fundamental principle of good play in Gwent.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy to determine how much one should commit in round 1 (where over commitment is most prevalent) because it is very conditional. The more your opponent commits, the more you can safely commit. The more winning the first round matters in a match-up, the more you can commit. Often a better question than “How much can I commit here?” is the question, “What will I have left compared to my opponent if I commit this card?” Another good question is always, “What will I gain by this commitment?”

Be careful to balance benefits accrued with resources expended. It might seem like “winning on even” (winning round one playing the same number of cards from your hand as your opponent played from theirs) is a great advantage since your opponent will need to play at least one card to win round 2, leaving you more cards for round 3. But a typical card will play for about 10 points (less at higher ranks where players don’t have access to all optimal cards). If you commit 30 points more future value than your opponent to achieve this, the advantage is not worth it.

And remember that leader abilities are also commitment. The capability to have two effects in the same round is huge. With rare exceptions, leaders should be saved for later rounds.

#2. Indiscriminately Playing in Round 2:

If you win round 1, you should always consider dry-passing round 2 (passing without playing any cards). Although there are unquestionably times when you should play round 2, there are probably just as many situations when you should not. I have seen many cases where players unwisely play into round 2.

If you win round 1, your opponent is forced to expend a card in round 2 (If they do not win the round, they lose the match). You do not need to expend a card. By playing anything in round 2, you risk losing this advantage. Moreover, because you go first, your opponent can play to be able to stay just a couple of points ahead. Even if you have 8 or more cards in your hand, (so you would lose a draw in round 3) playing a “junk” card to just to get rid of it is rarely wise because keeping the card gives you an extra mulligan – which could be used to get rid of the card you wanted to be rid of – but it could be used on something even worse if you draw poorly. A good rule of thumb is to never play unnecessarily into round 2 unless there is a reason to do so.

And what are reasons to play into round 2? Here are a few.
  • You want a short round – either because you have a few very high value cards whose strength you don’t want diluted by other, weaker cards, or because your opponent has a lot of cards which generate points over time (engines) and you don’t want to allow them time.
  • Your opponent’s deck contains powerful cards you want to force out before a decisive round, or it contains devastating combinations you want to split apart.
  • You believe you can force your opponent to play high value cards while you play low value cards. Generally, even if your opponent is ahead by a significant number of points they can’t pass if you could surpass their point total playing out your remaining cards. For instance, if an NG opponent has played Calveit in round one, you can be pretty sure most of the cards in their hand are gold – make them waste those cards responding to bronze junk.
  • Your deck still needs to set up points for the final round and it will be unable to do so in a long final round.
  • You have a very strong hand and expect to win 2-0 even if you have fewer cards to play than your opponent.
  • Your opponent has a deck that struggles to play three competitive rounds. Don’t grant an uncontested round!
  • You have a deck that plays much better when you go first in a round. This is typical of decks that play a lot of cards that produce ongoing damage over time – you want to set up cards that destroy your opponent’s cards before they can set up cards that destroy yours.
  • Your opponent has telegraphed an awkward hand and might be vulnerable to a push for a 2-0.
#3. Failing to Consider Possible Opponent Responses:

Often players instinctively reach for cards with nice immediate effect, only to regret it after an opponent responds. Here is an example to which most beginning players can relate. Suppose on blue coin, you play a nice engine (a card which gains value over time). But it is only four-power (vulnerable to Azur’s Thunder) so you play your Tactical Advantage Stratagem to boost it to nine-power. Then your opponent removes it with Geralt of Rivia. You know your opponent owns Geralt (it is in every starter deck); it is likely your opponent plays Geralt (it is by far the highest potential payoff of any starter deck card); you should anticipate your opponent playing Geralt as a response to your Tactical Advantage play. Often, short term greedy plays are far from optimal long-term.

Another, surprisingly common case is players failing to consider on opponent pass. I have seen players, who, 20 points down and with 4 cards left, play some 5-point bronze card. After I pass, they realize that they cannot catch my score without using too many good cards and pass. If they anticipate me passing, they would pass before playing the junk bronze card and wasting a future turn.

#4. Blundering:

This error I mainly see in myself because it is not always obvious when opponents do it. But I suspect it is common. I describe as a blunder any situation where a plan is not executed as intended. Some examples include playing a card with a row-tied ability to the wrong row, accidentally playing the wrong card (I do this when I accidentally pick up a card adjacent to the card I wanted, when I mix up two cards with the same color tone, or when two cards in my hand have the same power and I look only at the power and not at the card), overlooking conditions a card might have, overlooking statuses (I often just don’t see veiled and shielded status symbols against busy card backgrounds), and miscounting the number of status and engine based boosts/damage coming next turn thus making critical decisions based upon flawed information.

#5. Mistiming Plays:

Mis-timed plays can occur because of overlooked tactical windows of opportunity or because of strategic neglect. I often find an opponent plays a dangerous card (usually an engine) for which I don’t have a natural response, so I continue with my previous plan – only to realize after I play that there would have been an unconventional solution if I had only acted immediately. One turn later, the card has received some form of boost or protection and the opportunity is lost.

A common strategic mistiming is with the play of high tempo (usually high immediate point value) cards in early rounds. Generally good players in early rounds tend to match tempo of their opponent, staying within reach of a single card (in case the opponent passes), but not building a huge lead that is generally overcommitment. If all your large value cards are played early in the round and your opponent keeps pace, you often do not have the one turn reach to push deep into the round. Keeping high reach cards in hand usually allows more options later in a round.

#6. Poor Mulligan Choices:

Mulligans are an important strategic element of the game. Beginners are prone to err by always mulliganing the weakest card in their hand. While this is often the correct choice there are exceptions.

If your initial hand contains many cards that you cannot play round one, you should mulligan an unplayable card rather than a weak bronze – otherwise you will not be able to compete deep into the round.

If your deck has bricks (cards that don’t play for true value from your hand) or your hand has cards that can be bricked (made to play for little value) if you draw the wrong card, you are often better off not using your final mulligan at all rather than risking bricks.

And you should also consider variety of cards in hand. It is usually more useful to have a mixture of engine and control cards as opposed to a deck full of engines. If you play SY, you need a mixture of coin earning and coin spending cards, it’s better not to have too much tall punish at once, etc.

#7. Poor Card Placement:

Most cards are equally effective regardless of where they are played. But placement is often important for defensive purposes – and this is a simple matter of anticipation and planning. When I started Gwent, it made sense to divide units across both rows to minimize the impact of row punish cards like Lacerate. But with more cards comes greater complication; where to play cards depends both upon anticipating possible opponent response and planning for your deck’s needs.

Opponent cards/abilities you should consider include (this is not a complete list):
  • row punish, Cat Witcher Saboteur – divide units across rows
  • weather – keep units in a single row to avoid exposing yourself to more than one weather effect per turn.
  • Geralt Igni – divide tall units across different rows.
  • Triss Meteor Shower – divide base power across rows when playing against Triss.
  • Gezras of Leyda – avoid the front row if playing against Gezras
  • Tavern Brawl, Treason, Red Haze, Rainfarn of Attre, Ulfhedinn – avoid strong units adjacent to each other.
  • Rot Tosser – Separate units by artifacts or veiled units.
  • Foltest’s Pride, Acid Spit, Nivellen, Muirlega, Arachas Venom, Devils Puffball, Boiling Oil, Salamandra Mage, Drummond Warmonger, Samum, Alba Spearman, Mage Infiltrator – avoid adjacent units.
  • Renfri (Curse of Wrath) – avoid bracketing weak units (esp. 1 power units) with strong ones.
  • Assassination – keep units adjacent.
  • Sabertooth Tiger – avoid isolating units on a row by themselves.
  • Brehen – avoid placing powerful units on right hand end of row.
  • Dire Bear – divide boosting units across rows.
Effects impacting planning of placement for your needs include (again, not a complete list):
  • Abilities tied to rows.
  • Abilities requiring adjacency.
  • Establishing conditions (such as Sabbath).
  • Maximizing utilization of a Defender.
  • Preserving space for spawned units (rows have space for 9 cards).
#8 Premature Forfeiting:

I see premature forfeiting often – with both experienced and novice players. It is probably less common in ranked play (where losses have consequences), but I have seen it there as well.

Many players do not like certain matchups and immediately forfeit upon seeing a given faction/leader. While it makes sense to plan play based upon any helpful information, it is wrong to assume your opponent is playing a disliked deck without at least observing some of the cards that they play. For example, to complete quests based upon playing specified numbers of cards, I used to play a Nilfgaard deck where every card resulted in playing a second (and often a third) card. It was not designed to win – it was simply designed to play a lot of cards. But a significant number of players immediately forfeited – probably because of hated cards like Yennifer’s Invocation or Vilgefortz that weren’t even in my deck. Not only did this force me to wait (often as much as five minutes) to queue a new match, it deprived my opponent of a virtual certain win and of reward from playing the match. If both players play even one card, you are given credit for contracts and an opportunity to receive resources from a good game; with immediate forfeits you are not. With the new cycle reward system, I expect you will see more decks not designed to be competitive, but to complete quests.

A similar issue is forfeiting upon completing round 1 mulligans. Even if you have horrible draws, your opponent might have gotten draws that are just as bad – or they might be playing a junk deck (like I often do). Why not test the waters by playing a couple of cards first – especially given the reward structure encouraging that? And if your deck is so sensitive to getting a certain card drawn that you can’t play without it, I suggest redesigning the deck to be less sensitive to draw – both you and your opponent will enjoy it more.

Also, be careful about assuming a match is lost. Losing round 1 is not a guarantee of losing the match. Going a card down is not a guarantee of losing. At rank 25, I have seen several players forfeit games I expected them to win. Occasionally, such a forfeit is because a player got interrupted, but I suspect most are a premature surrender.

Finally, try to consider your opponent as well. I try to pass rather than forfeit whenever possible to enable my opponent to play to complete quests if they want to do so. I generally only forfeit if I get interrupted and can’t finish the game, or if I want to lose (yes, I often want to lose!) and I fear my opponent might forfeit first.
 
Gwent Strategy Article: Playstyle

In Gwent, there are multiple possible styles of play. Most players generally adapt elements of all styles depending upon the situation – that is an essential feature of playing well. But I suspect most players have innate preferences – and identifying them within oneself can help a player identify the decks for which they will likely have affinities, as well as better understanding their play choices and ways to strengthen that play.

Because this list is based upon self-reflection and observation of others through the lens of my perception, I do not claim the following list is complete; I do think it captures a significant proportion of playstyles I have observed.

I identify four major play foci.
  • The Aggressive / Controlling Style. Players identifying with this style of play like to dominate the game flow and game decisions. They like to keep their opponent down, with few options: they want to control which cards get used, and when. They want to control the flow of the match; they tend to want round control and want every round to follow their script. This type of player tends to like cards grant or reward dominating play. They tend to like archetypes like SK warriors, SY bounty, NR siege or reavers, most NG archetypes, and most Aerondight archetypes – although they may also hate these archetypes because opponent’s playing the archetypes deny their ability to control the match.
  • The Greedy Style. Players embracing this style gravitate toward powerful engines and big combinations. They may be drawn toward removal engines – especially if these engines shut down opponent point production, but they are also drawn toward any card that can produce powerful benefits for friendly cards – especially benefits that are difficult to directly counter. They are often willing to give up consistency for points in both deck building and play. They are often drawn towards cards/decks with big swing values and powerful engines. Many archetypes lend themselves to this style of play – more than I can easily list. There is significant overlap with the aggressive style described above, but greedy players tend to be more focused upon dominating through their own overwhelming points than through shutting down their opponent’s options.
  • The Tactical / Counter-Punch style. Players favoring this style like to always have relatively direct answers for any card that an opponent plays and seem to enjoy clever tricks that keep an opponent off balance. They love interactive play and are often drawn to red-coin because it is hard to counter an empty board. These players often enjoy a variety of control tools from removal to locks to movement to row effects to purify, because, the more options, the more flexibility in addressing anything an opponent tosses their direction. These players tend to reject “solitaire” play styles and cards in favor of cards that build interesting board states and offer multiple combinations. Many players favoring this style of play may be frustrated with the direction Gwent has taken over the last couple of years because it seems that points are increasingly “protected” from direct counters – whether through immunity, through distributing the points across multiple units, or through hiding the points in relatively inaccessible locations (like in decks, in hands, in artifacts, etc.).
  • The Strategic / Disciplined style. The long view is paramount in this type of player’s mind. They carefully track the relative commitment of both players throughout the match and are continually maneuvering (if subtly) for optimal positioning moving forward. They often rely on game knowledge to anticipate possible responses, and to evaluate the favorability of upcoming round states. They are rarely tempted into taking unsound risks – unless they believe the risk is the best option to escape with a win. These players are drawn to cards that create carryover, as well as cards (like any of the Ciri’s) that leave opponents with awkward dilemmas in deciding too continue a round. These players (not unlike tactical/counterpunch players) often tend to enjoy a match based more upon what deck they play against than what deck they play.
In addition to these major styles of play, there are certain player “dispositions” that might modify how a player plays within the various styles. Some of these dispositions include:
  • A player’s aversion to risk. Risk averse players want backup plans for their backup plans. Risk takers readily sacrifice consistency for more points.
  • A player’s penchant for innovation. Some players like highly choreographed play orders; others enjoy innovating depending upon the draw.
  • A player’s focus on calculation/ formula over intuition. The calculating type of player makes decisions based upon careful counting and, often, formula-driven thought processes. The intuitive player relies on an innate intuitive judgment to make wise decisions – although counting still has a place.
  • A player’s attention to aesthetics. Some players want to keep their archetypes “pure”. Some may lean toward favorite cards/factions regardless of their success with those cards. Some want their decks to capture the lore of the game. Others couldn’t care less about these elements.
I don’t know whether this is the “right” classification scheme. I do think it is helpful – especially when trying to understand certain players’ reactions to various cards/decks.

For example, I have zero objection to NG mill, while I have an intense dislike of Simlas – the complete reverse of many players. When I consider play-style, at least my preference becomes obvious. I tend to play a very strategic/disciplined style (with a touch of tactical counterpunch and of greed). I am also highly risk-averse and strongly value innovative play. Thus, I love consistency, but I hate tutors and thinning (tutors reduce innovation; thinning risks bricking). My decks achieve consistency by avoiding undue polarization, avoiding excess reliance upon a single card, carrying multiple win conditions, and using lots of redundancy.

So, mill will never “snatch” a critical card (I don’t have any). And mill will rarely drive my decks to total depletion, as I never help mill myself. But I tend to have lots of options to play high enough tempo to win round one against mill. And, from there, I enjoy the strategic decision to either threaten a 2-0 to or simply out-perform Kolgrim and company in a long round.

On the other hand, I find Simlas absolutely horrible as a card (in elf decks – most other uses don’t bother me). First, it is a card that is highly draw dependent. Failure to draw Vanadain in round one renders typical Simlas/elves decks very challenging. Failure to draw enough tempo to either win round one or to push an opponent into heavy commitment typically renders the Simlas player vulnerable to bleeds that break up elf synergies. But if Simlas decks draw well, they demand huge amounts of either removal or tempo to defeat. And my risk-averse, untutored decks with no big cards have neither. I hate the randomness; I hate that my otherwise reasonable decks are often helpless against a card with no tactical counters because I also lack massive (inconsistent) greed cards to offset the removal, point swing, and future synergies established by Simlas.

I can certainly believe players with different play-styles have different experiences against these decks.

Where do you fit in this scheme of playstyles? Or do you use a style I overlooked? Have I unfairly stereotyped any style? Please help me to improve this analysis.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Gwent Strategy Article: Playstyle

In Gwent, there are multiple possible styles of play. Most players generally adapt elements of all styles depending upon the situation – that is an essential feature of playing well. But I suspect most players have innate preferences – and identifying them within oneself can help a player identify the decks for which they will likely have affinities, as well as better understanding their play choices and ways to strengthen that play.

Because this list is based upon self-reflection and observation of others through the lens of my perception, I do not claim the following list is complete; I do think it captures a significant proportion of playstyles I have observed.

I identify four major play foci.
  • The Aggressive / Controlling Style. Players identifying with this style of play like to dominate the game flow and game decisions. They like to keep their opponent down, with few options: they want to control which cards get used, and when. They want to control the flow of the match; they tend to want round control and want every round to follow their script. This type of player tends to like cards grant or reward dominating play. They tend to like archetypes like SK warriors, SY bounty, NR siege or reavers, most NG archetypes, and most Aerondight archetypes – although they may also hate these archetypes because opponent’s playing the archetypes deny their ability to control the match.
  • The Greedy Style. Players embracing this style gravitate toward powerful engines and big combinations. They may be drawn toward removal engines – especially if these engines shut down opponent point production, but they are also drawn toward any card that can produce powerful benefits for friendly cards – especially benefits that are difficult to directly counter. They are often willing to give up consistency for points in both deck building and play. They are often drawn towards cards/decks with big swing values and powerful engines. Many archetypes lend themselves to this style of play – more than I can easily list. There is significant overlap with the aggressive style described above, but greedy players tend to be more focused upon dominating through their own overwhelming points than through shutting down their opponent’s options.
  • The Tactical / Counter-Punch style. Players favoring this style like to always have relatively direct answers for any card that an opponent plays and seem to enjoy clever tricks that keep an opponent off balance. They love interactive play and are often drawn to red-coin because it is hard to counter an empty board. These players often enjoy a variety of control tools from removal to locks to movement to row effects to purify, because, the more options, the more flexibility in addressing anything an opponent tosses their direction. These players tend to reject “solitaire” play styles and cards in favor of cards that build interesting board states and offer multiple combinations. Many players favoring this style of play may be frustrated with the direction Gwent has taken over the last couple of years because it seems that points are increasingly “protected” from direct counters – whether through immunity, through distributing the points across multiple units, or through hiding the points in relatively inaccessible locations (like in decks, in hands, in artifacts, etc.).
  • The Strategic / Disciplined style. The long view is paramount in this type of player’s mind. They carefully track the relative commitment of both players throughout the match and are continually maneuvering (if subtly) for optimal positioning moving forward. They often rely on game knowledge to anticipate possible responses, and to evaluate the favorability of upcoming round states. They are rarely tempted into taking unsound risks – unless they believe the risk is the best option to escape with a win. These players are drawn to cards that create carryover, as well as cards (like any of the Ciri’s) that leave opponents with awkward dilemmas in deciding too continue a round. These players (not unlike tactical/counterpunch players) often tend to enjoy a match based more upon what deck they play against than what deck they play.
In addition to these major styles of play, there are certain player “dispositions” that might modify how a player plays within the various styles. Some of these dispositions include:
  • A player’s aversion to risk. Risk averse players want backup plans for their backup plans. Risk takers readily sacrifice consistency for more points.
  • A player’s penchant for innovation. Some players like highly choreographed play orders; others enjoy innovating depending upon the draw.
  • A player’s focus on calculation/ formula over intuition. The calculating type of player makes decisions based upon careful counting and, often, formula-driven thought processes. The intuitive player relies on an innate intuitive judgment to make wise decisions – although counting still has a place.
  • A player’s attention to aesthetics. Some players want to keep their archetypes “pure”. Some may lean toward favorite cards/factions regardless of their success with those cards. Some want their decks to capture the lore of the game. Others couldn’t care less about these elements.
I don’t know whether this is the “right” classification scheme. I do think it is helpful – especially when trying to understand certain players’ reactions to various cards/decks.

For example, I have zero objection to NG mill, while I have an intense dislike of Simlas – the complete reverse of many players. When I consider play-style, at least my preference becomes obvious. I tend to play a very strategic/disciplined style (with a touch of tactical counterpunch and of greed). I am also highly risk-averse and strongly value innovative play. Thus, I love consistency, but I hate tutors and thinning (tutors reduce innovation; thinning risks bricking). My decks achieve consistency by avoiding undue polarization, avoiding excess reliance upon a single card, carrying multiple win conditions, and using lots of redundancy.

So, mill will never “snatch” a critical card (I don’t have any). And mill will rarely drive my decks to total depletion, as I never help mill myself. But I tend to have lots of options to play high enough tempo to win round one against mill. And, from there, I enjoy the strategic decision to either threaten a 2-0 to or simply out-perform Kolgrim and company in a long round.

On the other hand, I find Simlas absolutely horrible as a card (in elf decks – most other uses don’t bother me). First, it is a card that is highly draw dependent. Failure to draw Vanadain in round one renders typical Simlas/elves decks very challenging. Failure to draw enough tempo to either win round one or to push an opponent into heavy commitment typically renders the Simlas player vulnerable to bleeds that break up elf synergies. But if Simlas decks draw well, they demand huge amounts of either removal or tempo to defeat. And my risk-averse, untutored decks with no big cards have neither. I hate the randomness; I hate that my otherwise reasonable decks are often helpless against a card with no tactical counters because I also lack massive (inconsistent) greed cards to offset the removal, point swing, and future synergies established by Simlas.

I can certainly believe players with different play-styles have different experiences against these decks.

Where do you fit in this scheme of playstyles? Or do you use a style I overlooked? Have I unfairly stereotyped any style? Please help me to improve this analysis.
It's interesting, you wrote this article and i had planned on writing a similar thing for a different project - also about playstyles and player types, but not about Gwent but videogames in general.
I am saying this to let know that i've also thought about the subject and worked on it (mentally), and im not coming up with these points just now.

My favourite part of your text is when you mention 'classification schemes'. There are innumerous forms of classification of player behaviour, and its so subjective its impossible to say one is the most important of all. There's these spectra of different characteristics, and each player has a position in each, regardless of their awareness or not.

Here's just some to complement the ones you mentioned:

-the infamous 'triangle archetype', with pointslam-control-engines, each winning against one and losing to the other. You did mention playstyles that are correlated to these: the greedy style is associated with engines, and both the aggressive and tactical counter-punch can be linked to control.

-I like to point out there's also swarm, which is a form of pointslam with a touch of engine mechanics. Basically there are players who prefer huge, tall units, others (like me) who prefer going wide. This shows a bit my risk-aversion, not because going wide is intrinsically less risky, but particularly in Gwent, this has been the case, and its very easy to kill a giant unit and the meta is usually very forgiving to swarming (perhaps because of NG's popularity and lack of NG has 0 wide control tools).

-the speed a player acts, the average time it takes each turn. I may not be the best, but i throw my hat in the ring that im the fastest in Pro Rank, without affecting severely my performance with mistakes.

-you mentioned aesthetics. I am a huge Witcher buff and love doing theme decks, like all the Geralts, all the Triss's, all the Yens, or very recently, Olgierd and Iris together decks or dragon decks in different factions.

-there's also the influence of external factors, like quests or contracts that lead players to using decks they arent pleased with just to get their goal done.

-one playstyle that is very dear to me, that you didnt mention in your post apart from a 'penchant for innovation' is a sub-type of creative deckbuilding, which is to make humble cards shine. Picking up a neglected bronze or cheap gold that everyone ignored and extracting as much value as it can, like getting 30+pts Tourney Shaelmaars or Bear Witcher Mentors.

-meta/ antimeta. Most players use netdecks, its no secret. Most players know which side they're on and see the other with contempt. This doesnt affect meta players, who always try hard to win, but being part of the minority of non-meta players creates a sort of comraderie in some players, myself included.
When i face someone trying something different, i think and act like a tough older brother, who is supportive and wants the other to win but wont lose on purpose. When its a netdecker, i act like its my worst enemy, emote at every mistake, or when they're falling into a trap, ocasionally rope if i dont see a winning line and give no GGs.
And this is just on the match itself, if a particular metadeck annoys me to a certain point, i am known to go into deckbuilder and create the most anti-meta deck to counter that particular deck and make some netdeckers lives miserable.
So, two very different playstyles, depending on opponents.
 
You've heard of "if you're sick, stay home?" If you're sick, stay off Gwent or you may start your season with a 30% win ratio and have to play catch-up for the rest of the month.
 
Top Bottom