So, has MoO FINALLY FINALLY KILLED GWENT?
Naw. It's just continued the tradition of mediocrity.
I think it's harsh. Balance needs to be addressed but both Iron Judgement and Merchant of Ofir introduced nice cards, interesting mechanics and beautiful arts.
Hopefully now the team will follow what they announced and focus on balancing the game we have before releasing a new expansion.
Hopefully now the team will follow what they announced and focus on balancing the game we have before releasing a new expansion.
Tell you what's absolutely broke a.f. Skellige's Strategem.
Strategem played R1 already, so Into R3 and my opponent plays:
Caretaker - Stratagem - Second Wind - Ermion - Alchemy Card - Alchemy Card - Druid - Alchemy Card. In ONE turn. It was approaching 30 points.
Again I ask, why do CDPR just not think this stuff through? Notwithstanding the fact it's bullshit someone gets a deal that allows this combo to be played so easily.
Strategem played R1 already, so Into R3 and my opponent plays:
Caretaker - Stratagem - Second Wind - Ermion - Alchemy Card - Alchemy Card - Druid - Alchemy Card. In ONE turn. It was approaching 30 points.
Again I ask, why do CDPR just not think this stuff through? Notwithstanding the fact it's bullshit someone gets a deal that allows this combo to be played so easily.
Looking past the fact that indeed the scenarios are very (too?) strong, the problem lies once more in the leaders allowing a second play per turn.
Solution 1: change those abilities, but that won't happen
Solution 2 (my favorite): remove at least 5 provisions from them. They should be around 160, no more
Solution 3 (that helps with scenario but not with other cases like defender + other card or other combos): remove 'prologue' on deploy and make it chapter 1, 2 and 3. High risk, high reward. With leaders playing a second card you get 1 (or 2) chapter(s), otherwise you spend a turn to set up something that, if left untouched, will give you a lot of points
I find the NG and NR scenarios as problematic, if not more...
Solution 1: change those abilities, but that won't happen
Solution 2 (my favorite): remove at least 5 provisions from them. They should be around 160, no more
Solution 3 (that helps with scenario but not with other cases like defender + other card or other combos): remove 'prologue' on deploy and make it chapter 1, 2 and 3. High risk, high reward. With leaders playing a second card you get 1 (or 2) chapter(s), otherwise you spend a turn to set up something that, if left untouched, will give you a lot of points
Post automatically merged:
I find the NG and NR scenarios as problematic, if not more...
Indeed, just lost against the NR scenario, with Caretaker replaying it giving an unchallenged run against my mild ST elf deck, twice. The added problem is the value the NR scenario gives to low value cards. There's a 4 point damage card that is VERY easily increased to 9-10 points when you have additional siege engines. Just like the SK scenario, it really feels as though CDPR overlook this stuff. How is a 4 point bronze damage card not only able to deal massive damage, but then also contribute to the progress of a scenario? It's effing mental. I sort of understand the ST one, where the units are small and inoffensive (just compare ST and NR - NR plays 5 points in prologue (4 point body, 1 random damage) whereas the ST version plays one 3 point body; easy to remove).
Absolutely correct that leaders playing second cards are far too strong and should be much, much more expensive therefore rendering the ability to have a tutor unit - like Caretaker - almost impossible. Your second option seems the easiest technical and logical fix. Or even up/amend the provisions. The ST scenario is not as effective and requires more set-up than the NR version. The SK version can be played through Prologue, 1 and 2 in a single turn - ST can only get to Chapter 2.
How little attention is paid by CDPR to these ideas? They seem very poorly thought through, very careless.
Last edited:
It's a bit frustrating they turned so many super low strength units (like Freya) into specials not letting you put multiple units on the board in a single play but then they're fine with scenarios and same-turn leader tutoring etc. when said tutors are often used to play oppressive/removal cards.
A big problem throughout Gwent for me has been that decks that are unfun to play against breed more decks that are unfun to play against. For example: if an NR deck gets to put Lyrian Cavalries + Archers and Aretuza mages down you will get board wiped which feels awful. You know what you play will just get removed no matter what.
Unless ofc you remove all of those archers and mages. So then you get NG decks who pretty much try to do the same thing which is destroying all of your units Thronebreaker style just so you can't do it to them.
Frightener is great design. Scenarios could be too if they were to change what these cards are actually pulling/how they're pulled. Since there's only so few of them it should be easy enough for them to rework them in a positive way.
This expansion brought some good things and has potential to have an even bigger lasting positive effect but only if certain fundamental gameplay elements (that have plagued HC from the beginning) finally get some attention. Please, less cosmetics and shiny doodles, more attention to gameplay. The game looks good, sounds good, has plenty of nice little trinkets to collect, but gameplay is still lacking for me.
If they're gonna put more resources into esports then hopefully they'll also work on making this game more entertaining to play and also to watch. Because playing Gwent in these metas isn't always fun but watching others do it In its current state is particularly a real bore.
A big problem throughout Gwent for me has been that decks that are unfun to play against breed more decks that are unfun to play against. For example: if an NR deck gets to put Lyrian Cavalries + Archers and Aretuza mages down you will get board wiped which feels awful. You know what you play will just get removed no matter what.
Unless ofc you remove all of those archers and mages. So then you get NG decks who pretty much try to do the same thing which is destroying all of your units Thronebreaker style just so you can't do it to them.
Frightener is great design. Scenarios could be too if they were to change what these cards are actually pulling/how they're pulled. Since there's only so few of them it should be easy enough for them to rework them in a positive way.
This expansion brought some good things and has potential to have an even bigger lasting positive effect but only if certain fundamental gameplay elements (that have plagued HC from the beginning) finally get some attention. Please, less cosmetics and shiny doodles, more attention to gameplay. The game looks good, sounds good, has plenty of nice little trinkets to collect, but gameplay is still lacking for me.
If they're gonna put more resources into esports then hopefully they'll also work on making this game more entertaining to play and also to watch. Because playing Gwent in these metas isn't always fun but watching others do it In its current state is particularly a real bore.
Scenarios and leaders allowing a second play are both problematic on their own. Only solutions that address root causes (like solution 1) are true solutions. Changing provision points is not a solution for big issues and should only be done for fine-tuning.
I don't understand why some people write things like "that won't happen" when suggesting good solutions. The best solutions sometimes require some effort. Why would CDPR put effort in something that players seem to have already accepted not to happen? If you want it, you have to push for it, especially when you're the customer. Otherwise it's sadness, defeatism.
Several major gameplay issues have been raised and solutions suggested on this forum and reddit from HC onwards, but CDPR has only focused on expansions with blatant power creep, unbalanced and OP mechanics and vanity stuff that is negatively impacting gameplay and immersion (lore). Communication and transparency from CDPR are really bad, apparently due to lack of clear vision, proper project planning and, judging by current "game balance", expert knowledge of gameplay mechanics. I'm no longer playing this game until I see serious improvement in gameplay.
But I don't really want it. I like those leaders enabling to play combos. The problem is that they're getting out of control with the many expansions.
Provisions there would not be fine tuning. If you give a range of provisions in leaders of 10-15 points, underused leaders would be advantaged on deckbuilding and strong abilities like double play would be disadvantaged. For example, NR pincer would have to choose and not be able to put the scenario, Fillipa, Falibor, Roche, Baron...
That was the whole point of giving leaders provisions instead of mulligans after homecoming. Now 9/10 are at 15-16 provisions. That's just completely useless.
Even leaders like Francesca, they removed 2 provisions... But now with the addition of all the expansions, you can easily replace a 12 provision by a 10 or even more easily a couple of 5-6 by 4-5p since they are not just fillers anymore.
Provisions there would not be fine tuning. If you give a range of provisions in leaders of 10-15 points, underused leaders would be advantaged on deckbuilding and strong abilities like double play would be disadvantaged. For example, NR pincer would have to choose and not be able to put the scenario, Fillipa, Falibor, Roche, Baron...
That was the whole point of giving leaders provisions instead of mulligans after homecoming. Now 9/10 are at 15-16 provisions. That's just completely useless.
Even leaders like Francesca, they removed 2 provisions... But now with the addition of all the expansions, you can easily replace a 12 provision by a 10 or even more easily a couple of 5-6 by 4-5p since they are not just fillers anymore.
So you propose a root cause solution that you don't really want? Everyone wants fun combo's, but they need to be balanced. I guess CDPR is obviously power creeping expansions, trying to sell more.
I think even with that change in provisions, some leader abilities are still too strong. The three rounds and card limit make it so that crazy point swings win games. Therefore the leader abilities need to be changed (root cause addressed) AND provisions should be used better as you suggested (for fine-tuning).
Well it is a solution. I already prefer the second one and there are probably others i haven't thought of. Those abilities are strong but they became too strong since Iron judgement, with mechanics like defenders and Ofir with the scenarios. Before that they were strong but not so out of control. Yes, mystic echo and pincer have been crazy for a few months but others were not even used like second wind or call of harmony. They allow for a different play style and give some other options that boost/damage this or that, which accounts to more than half of the other leaders.
If there is a way to solve the problem, I'd take it over removing it. Fix the balance of other cards (defenders, scenarios, some OP cards, synergies getting out of hands...), by working like you said on successive patches to balance the game we have instead of adding an expansion or remodeling the whole thing. Try stuff, tune it until you get closer and closer to something balanced.
Again, not saying it's easy or what but as you also said, let's not say it won't happen and let's not be defeatists
example: stratgegic withdrawal, which is also a double play ability. It was getting out of control when combined with shupe or other cards so they made it NG specific. Maybe it was too much cause nobody was using it anymore so they added a +2 to it. It was fine, but now with the poison and a few other cards, it needs being tuned again.
Mystic echo was used a lot but the provision cost was hard to cope with. Broover and Eitne were also used. Even when harmony came at first, it wasn't top tier. Now it is because harmony has been put on almost every different type of units in ST so you can build a deck where each of your unit boosts all the others (problem 1) and some special are too strong to be played twice (water, call of the forest) (problem 2). Add a restriction to mystic echo then: 'damage random units on your side by half the provision of the replayed card', 'replay a special less than 8 provisions', 'sacrifice a unit and replay a special with provision equal to its strength'... I don't know, just throwing ideas out there but you don't need to get rid of the capacity.
Sorry for the triple post but something else is actually the discrepency between what is done in one patch and what is done in the next.
'Control is too strong, let's reduce damage' but before you see what's happening with that 'let's reintroduce armor and add defenders that are all about 10 points to get rid off but out of the range of tall unit removal' -> 'let's add 10 poison cards that don't give a damn about armor or power or status' double
'Thinning and consistency is a problem, let's remove most tutors' + '4p cards are not good enough' -> 'let's at the same time introduce portal and give 4p engines crazy potential, and let's add a couple tutors/thinning in each faction'
'let's focus on balancing the game in priority' -> merchants of ofir
'Artifacts and artifact removal are too binary, let's make them more expensive (ale, portal) or modify their ability (portal) and remove most artifact removal (but leave some in random factions)' -> 'let's add scenarios to help some archetypes, expensive artifacts that give you at least an engine and probably more, for an easy 20 point swing, that will force everybody to run at least one artifact removal.
Consistency, developments, balancing and patches need to be coherent. And that, for me, is the 'root of the problem'.
If there is a way to solve the problem, I'd take it over removing it. Fix the balance of other cards (defenders, scenarios, some OP cards, synergies getting out of hands...), by working like you said on successive patches to balance the game we have instead of adding an expansion or remodeling the whole thing. Try stuff, tune it until you get closer and closer to something balanced.
Again, not saying it's easy or what but as you also said, let's not say it won't happen and let's not be defeatists
Post automatically merged:
example: stratgegic withdrawal, which is also a double play ability. It was getting out of control when combined with shupe or other cards so they made it NG specific. Maybe it was too much cause nobody was using it anymore so they added a +2 to it. It was fine, but now with the poison and a few other cards, it needs being tuned again.
Mystic echo was used a lot but the provision cost was hard to cope with. Broover and Eitne were also used. Even when harmony came at first, it wasn't top tier. Now it is because harmony has been put on almost every different type of units in ST so you can build a deck where each of your unit boosts all the others (problem 1) and some special are too strong to be played twice (water, call of the forest) (problem 2). Add a restriction to mystic echo then: 'damage random units on your side by half the provision of the replayed card', 'replay a special less than 8 provisions', 'sacrifice a unit and replay a special with provision equal to its strength'... I don't know, just throwing ideas out there but you don't need to get rid of the capacity.
Post automatically merged:
Sorry for the triple post but something else is actually the discrepency between what is done in one patch and what is done in the next.
'Control is too strong, let's reduce damage' but before you see what's happening with that 'let's reintroduce armor and add defenders that are all about 10 points to get rid off but out of the range of tall unit removal'
-> 'let's add 10 poison cards that don't give a damn about armor or power or status' double 'Thinning and consistency is a problem, let's remove most tutors' + '4p cards are not good enough' -> 'let's at the same time introduce portal and give 4p engines crazy potential, and let's add a couple tutors/thinning in each faction'
'let's focus on balancing the game in priority' -> merchants of ofir
'Artifacts and artifact removal are too binary, let's make them more expensive (ale, portal) or modify their ability (portal) and remove most artifact removal (but leave some in random factions)' -> 'let's add scenarios to help some archetypes, expensive artifacts that give you at least an engine and probably more, for an easy 20 point swing, that will force everybody to run at least one artifact removal.
Consistency, developments, balancing and patches need to be coherent. And that, for me, is the 'root of the problem'.
Last edited: