I think Gwent is imbalanced. Devs need to listen more.

+
The thing is: The attempt of this game isn't pure balance. It's based on the Witcher series. E.g. Yennefer will always be able to beat Triss, it's a fact. If you just want to count numbers, play something else. This game is about knowing popular decks and how to deal with it. In other words, being aware of your opponents potential. Defenders are easy to defeat. All you need is a purify and some damage. A general advice: Don't try to play against cards. Try to play around them.
 
Yet this "lore" isn't even properly implemented in the game: Lore Inconsistencies with Cards and Mechanics. It is more about balance, after all.

I'd say the lore more or less dictates the thematic element of design but it's not really linked to balance.

Yen and Triss do totally different things in Gwent, one doesn't really beat the other because Gwent isn't about Triss or Yen being more powerful, it's about their contributions to an army as mages.
 
That would be a fair assessment. CDPR could have done more, though. Balancing everything, based on lore, might be impossible, but it's the little things that can give the game extra depth, like interactive voicelines.

All I want to see at this point is the dev team consider that maybe they need to develop each faction equally per expansion and start taking away a few of the NG control tools/stop the abuse of re-using gold cards/leader abilities since they're causing balance issues with pre HC-style tempo plays.
 
All I want to see at this point is the dev team consider that maybe they need to develop each faction equally per expansion and start taking away a few of the NG control tools/stop the abuse of re-using gold cards/leader abilities since they're causing balance issues with pre HC-style tempo plays.

When talking about the balance of the game, in general, something needs to be done, yes. However, I am out of the loop and, as such, no longer can give my opinion on the current state of the meta.
 
Last edited:
Philippa uses coins, a maximum of 9, so you have to prepare, at least with 1 powerful gold (like Dijkstra), or combination of skill and some profit cards.
And you spend the coins.
So it is very contextual, and has a limit. For her provision cost she is decent, but not OP.

Or just a cheap pickpocket.
 
SY players love to complain that they have to use coins, which adimittedly make deck buildinf harder, but also give an uninteractable carryover option
Usually those people do not complain about the coins needed, from my experience those people complain about people not counting coin costs, base their evaluation on the maximum coin cost and then call those spenders op for those flawed calculations (seriously coins are worth >=1 point, taking that into account should not be too challenging to do).
 
Usually those people do not complain about the coins needed, from my experience those people complain about people not counting coin costs, base their evaluation on the maximum coin cost and then call those spenders op for those flawed calculations (seriously coins are worth >=1 point, taking that into account should not be too challenging to do).

Well, coins are a bit like harmony was, it kind of comes along with most things you play. Uninteractable too. But it's not really about the coins, but Philippa being the best seize in the game. No lock, highest potential seize, putting unit points on board at the same time. 21 pointswing potentially without any "loss" of provision value for the "seize" unlike Vigo's Muzzle, and no lock. Unlike Sweers she can seize big engines and/or gold cards.

If Vigo could seize a 6 with no lock, it would be on pair with Philippa, assuming 1 coin is roughly 1 provision.
 
The thing is: The attempt of this game isn't pure balance. It's based on the Witcher series. E.g. Yennefer will always be able to beat Triss, it's a fact. If you just want to count numbers, play something else. This game is about knowing popular decks and how to deal with it. In other words, being aware of your opponents potential. Defenders are easy to defeat. All you need is a purify and some damage. A general advice: Don't try to play against cards. Try to play around them.
Totally agree with you, but devs don't need to listen more, they need maybe to feel it more, put themself in simple player who is BIG fan of one faction and all updates which comes goes into one side. Honestly I really would like to know if someone from devs are farming in this game all night or two to reach rank/cosmetics or something.
 
Personally, I think the developers do a very good job of listening. Granted, the only faction I can say I know well is NG; with that said, there have been various nerfs throughout the (admittedly short) amount of time I've been playing. But all of them align with sentiments I've seen expressed on these forums.

There are only so many changes to be made at once, though, and CDPR has always been wonderful at hearing players out. As such, I can claim no qualms with their work. Of course, there are still frustrating parts of Gwent, but if there weren't, I would not enjoy the game. Gwent holds my interest because I have to adjust my strategy with each match I play. I don't think that'd be possible without so many different ways for your opponent to gain the upper-hand.

Nonetheless, I agree there are changes that need to be made. But I have faith in the developers.
 
Philippa is far from broken, she is certainly good, but definitely not op.
Philippa is a 3 for 10 that allows you to convert coins into 2 points each.
If Philippa seizes a 7 strenght unit (if you find such a target) she plays as a 10 for 10 that is conditional.
If you seize a 9 she plays as a 12 for 10, again if you find a target with exactly 9 points and you just so happen to have 9 coins lying around.
Honestly I have not seen Philippa in a while and can understand people cutting it, the card is very reliant on being enabled by other cards and very inconsistent in short rounds.
Wrong, Philippa is in total a 21 point swing at full coin value and if a 9 strength body presents itself. To use simpler maths, if both players have a value of 6 points and player 1 seizes 3 points from the opponent the difference between both players would be 6 instead of 3, player 1 has 9 points whilst player 2 has 3
 
Wrong, Philippa is in total a 21 point swing at full coin value and if a 9 strength body presents itself. To use simpler maths, if both players have a value of 6 points and player 1 seizes 3 points from the opponent the difference between both players would be 6 instead of 3, player 1 has 9 points whilst player 2 has 3
Hmm.
Wrong [...]
Because you still ignored the cost of coins, 21-9=12.
And each coin you use is worth 1 point (actually slightly more than that even).
 
I don't believe you're considering frustration during design and balance tasks. A great example of this is the seize mechanic. In real life, the equivalent is called theft and theft in every country and culture I am aware of, is considered bad, inspires negative emotions and can result in criminal charges being laid. This is because theft is unfair and frustrating
Thanks for the laugh mate, seriously... Assault is also considered bad and yet we have Vicious Slash, Precision Strike and Onslaught in Gwent, what's up with that... :confused:
Onward, onward to be showered with comedy gold!
With Tridam, it's the double whammy of boosting while removing. It's why NR Archers aren't inherently imba, because they only take away points, they don't build up as they do it.
Know what Redanian Archer also doesn't do? He doesn't need another unit beside it.

See, this is why it's so hard to take criticism of Gwent and Nilfgaard seriously. I can imagine Gwent decision makers going through threads just facepalming and giving up on any intent to actually tweak the game.
 
Last edited:
A great example of this is the seize mechanic. In real life, the equivalent is called theft and theft in every country and culture I am aware of, is considered bad, inspires negative emotions and can result in criminal charges being laid.

I agree with several of your points, but are you for real? This quote cracked me up.

I wouldn't worry too much about people despising NG. I'm sure the new players are used to it from playing Witcher or watching the series. Like you say: "consistency" matters. ;)
 
Thanks for the laugh mate, seriously... Assault is also considered bad and yet we have Vicious Slash, Precision Strike and Onslaught in Gwent, what's up with that... :confused:
Onward, onward to be showered with comedy gold!

Know what Redanian Archer also doesn't do? He doesn't need another unit beside it.

See, this is why it's so hard to take criticism of Gwent and Nilfgaard seriously. I can imagine Gwent decision makers going through threads just facepalming and giving up on any intent to actually tweak the game.
You know, sometimes I wonder if designers ever look at threads of complaint or suggestion
 
You know, sometimes I wonder if designers ever look at threads of complaint or suggestion
If they, or someone in the team, didn't you'd never hear/see "we've listened to your feedback" or variations thereof. But you do, so clearly they do keep an eye on things.

Noting and acting on are two very different things, though, and especially in cases of "X is OP/underpowered" there is also data (100% objective) to take into account.
Also, there are two pretty major things with community feedback: it does not represent the entire community, and people are far more likely to post about what they dislike than about what they like (because that's just human nature).
 
A perfectly balanced game where everyone is 100% equal is boring to play. Rock-paper-scissors is perfectly balanced, yet no one seriously plays it.
Meanwhile league of legends, where balancing is nearly impossible, is one of the most popular games in the world.
 
Top Bottom