This patch was supposed to buff engines but instead it buffed removal. Dettlaff combined with new removal cards is crazy and its everywhere. I have no desire to play Dettlaff mirror matches over and over. This game just keeps failing to improve and learn from past mistakes. I'll take a break and check back later.
Here I was thinking it was supposed to neuter thinning for reasons, add new bugs, powercreep some stuff (that self-induced problem whereby developers intentionally inflate value on new stuff to provide incentives to acquire it quickly, often via paying for it, while pretending it's a "natural", unavoidable phenomenon), arbitrarily nerf certain cards, try oh so hard to save face on create and shake things up because doing so makes it look like something was accomplished. Gwent, coming to smartphones soon.
If that's what they were going for, they effing nailed it.
I think they listened to the community feedback because we were all crying out for more removal. Honestly, I just feel sad when my cards stay on the board for a few turns - it just doesn't feel right. Thankfully a game against Deadlaff or NG is never too far away and everything gets wiped, swiped, locked or obliterated and all is right with the world.
What I find the most amusing was when they created Svalbore, who is specifically designed to make it easier to remove berserk cards. Genius. How to make an entire archetype unplayable? Just ask CDPR for an update.
What's with them nerfing every thinning tool (Witchers, Birna, etc.) into the ground? It sucked seeing withcers in EVERY single deck but I thought they would fix that by adding more faction specific thinners, but they didn't. Now there's just like no way to get a consistent deck in most factions and it really hinders the kinds of decks that can be built. I personally hate losing from bad draw RNG (worst RNG imo) and like to reduce that risk as much as possible but i guess that's not allowed.
It's just the worst seeing this game get further away from the awesome skill-based game we had 1 year ago, i had a lot of hope they would backpedal on this expansion, but it seems they are doubling down instead.
It's just the worst seeing this game get further away from the awesome skill-based game we had 1 year ago, i had a lot of hope they would backpedal on this expansion, but it seems they are doubling down instead.
This all day long; CDPR really do seem quite dim when it comes to applying changes.
The problem wasn't the Witcher trio - the problem was that they were the ONLY deck thinning card for 4 out of 5 factions. And because of the smaller hand size from Beta they were auto-include if you wanted any kind of strategic control over your deck.
Now it's win/lose 100% based on the deal. I can see it happen to opponents too, it's a two way street, but it's very flawed.
Actually quite funny that you posted this
. Had a game where in my opening deal I had a Dwarven Agitator and no dwarves. I toss it because of that and pull a Volunteer. Now I have no dwarves with a Volunteer. So I mulligan it away and pull Sheldon on the 2nd mulligan. Musical chairs with teh dwarf synergy.Hold on, do you really mean to say that people who didn't run Witcher trio have no skill at all. I got all way to pro and never used the trio until rank seven and then dropped it in rank 3 when I changed decks.
Thinning is important, but it does not change the skills required to win at a decent rate.
1. Smart planning. You need to know how to use what you have to get the max possible value.
2. Knowing when to pass. Blue coin or red, this is essential.
3. Knowing when to bleed round 2. Even if you take a card disadvantage, sometimes this is the right move.
I could go on, but the point is simple. The reason the trio got nerfed is that they are bad for the game. Same with unicorn duo, if it is auto include then variety suffers. You still have faction based deck thinning, and honestly you have enough value cards and finishers available you shouldn't need consistent deck thinning to win.
Personally think if the hand you get is 10, then you need to have a deck of 21. Deck of 25 applied to Gwent Beta with 13 cards in your first hand. 25 is too many cards; I had a very similar scenario to @Restlessdingo32 when I had two agitators, no dwarves, mulliganed one, still had no dwarves, mulliganed the second and then had one!
There's certainly skill involved, and I would never profess to being particularly skilful or great at this game. You are right, anything that gets auto-include clearly doesn't work so I understand what CDPR are TRYING to do, I just think they've got their balance all over the place. Should be more thinning, synergy, less hard removal and locks. I wonder how many cards are in next-to-none of the decks being played?
It doesn't change the skills but it does result in getting screwed over more frequently when your deck thinning is unreliable. Haha.... Much of the game revolves around key cards. It's not true for every deck because some either run so much of one concept (certain engine overload concepts, for example) or every card carried is reliable value. It is for a lot of them.
Besides, certain leaders and factions are somewhat restricted in how they can build to begin with. Some cards are... not good. Some factions don't have to worry about thinning or consistency because it's apparently their faction identity. Others don't have to look far for solid combo cards. The list goes on....
I don't think anyone would dispute the above. There is a rather large difference between nerfing something to bring it down a notch and knocking it's value down so far it disappears from play completely though. If the former occurs it's a success. If the latter of the two occurs someone screwed up. The latter of the two is beginning to feel like the norm.
Pretty spot on I think, especially when seeing that Arena and even the special Crimson Curse Arena mode do not give CC kegs. I've seen several videos now from Gwent streamers with titles like "bla bla is amazing/really good/powerful". Just say it as it really is: several of the new cards and leaders are blatantly OP.
Nerfing the Witcher trio further is bad for the game imo. Was the Witcher trio auto-include? Certainly not. As mentioned above, there are several strong decks that don't need the Witcher trio. The Witcher trio provided thinning for decks that need thinning. As thinning options are already very limited, nerfing the Witcher trio (again) makes it apparent that CDPR wants less thinning and thereby more draw RNG. Less thinning reduces the amount of viable and competitive decks.
Gwent is advertised as strategy game. Yes, you have to play strategic to win, but losing anyway due to bad RNG and card variance is still very much possible, unavoidable even. The big question is how much RNG and variance should be tolerated before people start to feel that they are playing a gambling game.
Is anyone else finding that quitting, both you and the opponent, happens an awful lot earlier, an awful lot more often? I think it links into the RNG-heavy nature; you know from the deal if you've got a chance, and similarly the oppo hands are so predictable and repetitive that you know quite early if they've got the right deal or not.
Not really. Not anymore compared to any other time at least.
If by right deal you mean the start of the game then no, I'd disagree. It starts with your deck and the match-up. From there it's the opening draws, mulligans and coin flip result. Those largely determine the R1 approach, which tends to cascade to the rest of the game (pushing R1 aggressively? bleeding R2? playing R1 more passively and conserving resources? etc.). Granted, it depends upon the opponent draws and mulligans as well. That aspect is just based on reads and knowing what you can and cannot play around. If anything this last part is what separates stronger players from weaker players.
If you mean having a good idea on the result before it plays out then yes. Depending on the MU it's common to know if it's going to be a nail biter, you have the upper hand or you're up shit creek well before it happens. This is not really knowing the result from the deal though. If you feel you know you're going to win or lose based on the opening deal I'd say your deck sucks, it's a bad match-up for one of the players either in general or for the coin they drew, or you're doing something wrong.
I would say the game can be irritating and frustrating (can it be both?) to play at times. Some of the decks people play.... Some of the stuff they can play and actually win with. Some of the card tuning....
Crimson Curse has been live for a few weeks now. I have been playing some pre-CC decks. It's now a lot harder to compete with only pre-CC cards. It's clear that several cards from the Crimson Curse expansion are blatantly OP especially with the new synergies. It's very obvious and I can come up with reasons why this could have been done (to get people motivated to get/buy CC kegs and cards), but I don't really like that the game seems to have been made intentionally unbalanced for this. Shouldn't the introduction of new cards and mechanics be enough of a stimulation to get the expansion, without the power creep?
Which cards besides Regis BL and Gregoire do you consider to be OP?