Bleh, Eithne.... Brouver is still where it's at
.
.
Yeah he's fine, the problem is that people kinda anticipate your traps shenanigans in the last round, rendering atleast 1 of your cards useless. Eithne is the only leader that can keep numerous golds in the deck, and has better better thinning with brokilon sentinels, as they are easier to set up. People may also be more likely to bleed your brouver, if you overemphersize on traps in your deckbuilding.Bleh, Eithne.... Brouver is still where it's at
I'm not sure what you mean by rendering at least 1 card useless. I'm guessing you mean Pitfall. In that case it's not exactly useless. It's just not very good. Regardless, there are ways to play around people playing around it. It is true at higher levels of play this becomes more difficult. Useless is a bit of a stretch though.
Not sure what you mean by this either. Even with 14p it's easily possible to run 10-12 golds. There is undoubtedly a huge difference between 19p and 14p but plenty of leaders around 14-15p can be good.
Sentinels aren't exactly isolated to Eithne. Although, I'm not particularly fond of them given how they are arguably a liability against certain leaders and cards due to the low power body. It's sort of a common problem with most of the Dryads and, well, many ST bronze cards.
No doubt. Brouver has always been vulnerable to bleeds though. There are ways to mitigate this, even with a trap deck. Besides, Brouver only really has synergy with a single trap (Crushing...) and isn't exactly restricted to playing a trap build.
In any case my personal preference for Brouver is more about style of play and flexibility. Eithne has a rather limited leader ability and it's synergy is largely isolated to control options. Brouver, on the other hand, can be played offensively or defensively. Both in terms of deck builds and game play. In other words, there are more ways to play the leader. It could be traps, movement concepts, heavily control oriented, buff oriented, etc.
Farewell. You might be better off not playing card games. There are other fish in the sea.
Folks, matchmaking is not "rigged". It must simply deal with whoever is simultaneously online and available for a match at the time you search for one. Naturally, players that play more will be online more, and they're likely to have better decks since they're online playing more than others. There's no way to ensure that there's an even number of people at all skill levels available at all times.
That being said, there will probably be bugs and inefficiencies in the system. Let's keep the comments here constructive. If you're seeing something that seems systemic, simply post what you're seeing in as much detail as possible. Noting your region is also helpful.
That being said, there will probably be bugs and inefficiencies in the system. Let's keep the comments here constructive. If you're seeing something that seems systemic, simply post what you're seeing in as much detail as possible. Noting your region is also helpful.
The game IS rigged. I just came back from a break and I decided to try out Greatswords; something you HARDLY EVER see nowadays. Guess what? I go up against three opponents whose last card is Geralt: Yrden. I am so tired of this, the game always puts me against opponents who have the answer for EVERYTHING I have. I wish I could show you all the people I play against. If the game isn't rigged then it's definitely built to screw me over each time I play.
Of course it is. The game's a joke - what CDPR have really failed with is, in using an algorithm to ensure you can't "run away" with a match, all you do is face counter after counter after counter.
Here's something that I just found utterly beyond any explanation; decided to try Gwent on Xbox having uninstalled from PC. Obviously you can't link accounts (great work, CDPR) so it was a new player experience. Initially it was refreshing - Witchers in every deck, but getting seasonal points to spend again was nice. Up until I progressed a couple of ranks.
I'm absolutely not making this up, as others on this forum know I'm being honest, but I lost a LEVEL 28 match up against a Monsters deck with Speartip, 3 Witch combo, Old Speartip, WH Riders, Ozzrel and Caldwell. All appeared at EXACTLY THE RIGHT TIME IN THE RIGHT ORDER. AGAIN!!!!
I've crafted about 2 cards maybe but up against what is almost a Tier One deck, so what the hell is going on?
The game has turned to crap and once the old guard, who got all the scraps, start to tire it's gonna just collapse - there just won't be the income to keep it going.
Wild guess: the beginner spent money on the game to craft some good cards.
I remember my very first ranked match: I lost badly against a vastly superior deck containing a lot of legendary golds I could never afford at the time.
You're really being upset about completely normal stuff.
In any other game lvling up takes ages. Simulators, RPGs etc
Not Gwent. So you go online and play a new player at lower ranks who has a tier 1 deck when you are still dicking around with your (oh so proud) personal deck, and lose ha!
It's not for me.
Not Gwent. So you go online and play a new player at lower ranks who has a tier 1 deck when you are still dicking around with your (oh so proud) personal deck, and lose ha!
It's not for me.
My bad luck now lasts since 4-5 seasons of Gwent and about 1000 games. I had collected many datas and informations about my games in the last weeks and I have to conlcud that a single person can not have so many bad luck over such a long time...so the only rational explanation is that manipulation and deception are the reasons for that. One part of this manipulation is the matchmaking. For example: After some days of a break from Gwent and testing different things(factions, I started today with playing Henselt. I have played 5 or 6 matches and every deck I faced was either Eithne Hyper Control or NG Hyper Control and a single Henselt mirror match, which is not nice to play against too. This happens all the time when I change my decks, even when the change is inside of the same faction, I have to play against decks which counter mine. (actually, I had to play against Usurper Control, this player had about 40 MMR less than me, only that I have not to face somebody with a good matchup for me at the same MMR).
Another part of the manipulation is the coin flip. Today I had to go first in every of my games, this happens nearly every day to me. I have to go first in about 75% of my matches in the last weeks and especially in matches, where it's essential to go second to have a chance for winning the game. My record of going first is by 14 times in row, the probability that this happens is not existing. In the current meta where everybody plays Cleaver, it's such a big disadvantage to go first. This problem exits since the beginning ot the Gwent and nothing changed.
Finally, the last part of the manipulation is the card dealing. My opponents draw always their golds and the cards they need in a specific situation, for example Cleaver in round 1. And I constantly have 5 golds in my deck (by 8 cards left) or today 3 golds and only 4 cards left in the deck, in round 3. Most of the time I draw my cards for round 3 in the first round and have to decide if I play my win condition in the first round or discard them and never see them again in this game. I had mentioned before in other threads, that this game is decided by how lucky you be and skill doesn't really matter anymore.
Similar things like this were discussed in another thread some time ago, but I think it is time to evoke again what is going on in Gwent at the moment and that fairness and equity do not exist here. Because it is the essential part of such a competitive game, that everybody has the same chances.
I report exactly what happens in the next weeks in Gwent and hopefully I will see a change.
Another part of the manipulation is the coin flip. Today I had to go first in every of my games, this happens nearly every day to me. I have to go first in about 75% of my matches in the last weeks and especially in matches, where it's essential to go second to have a chance for winning the game. My record of going first is by 14 times in row, the probability that this happens is not existing. In the current meta where everybody plays Cleaver, it's such a big disadvantage to go first. This problem exits since the beginning ot the Gwent and nothing changed.
Finally, the last part of the manipulation is the card dealing. My opponents draw always their golds and the cards they need in a specific situation, for example Cleaver in round 1. And I constantly have 5 golds in my deck (by 8 cards left) or today 3 golds and only 4 cards left in the deck, in round 3. Most of the time I draw my cards for round 3 in the first round and have to decide if I play my win condition in the first round or discard them and never see them again in this game. I had mentioned before in other threads, that this game is decided by how lucky you be and skill doesn't really matter anymore.
Similar things like this were discussed in another thread some time ago, but I think it is time to evoke again what is going on in Gwent at the moment and that fairness and equity do not exist here. Because it is the essential part of such a competitive game, that everybody has the same chances.
I report exactly what happens in the next weeks in Gwent and hopefully I will see a change.
I suggest not using tactical advantage to buff your unit in the first play and giving cleaver such an enticing target. I basically always save those points until I might really need them to stay ahead.
Luck is definitely a big factor but you can still increase your chances of winning a lot by using a good deck, making good plays, using mulligans wisely etc etc.
Sounds like you are playing an engine deck. Personally I hardly bother with them. This game simply has too much control in it.
Luck is definitely a big factor but you can still increase your chances of winning a lot by using a good deck, making good plays, using mulligans wisely etc etc.
Sounds like you are playing an engine deck. Personally I hardly bother with them. This game simply has too much control in it.
If only i had a $ for each match lost by 1-2 points because i drew a shitty 4p card in last round instead of one of my golds. Every time i lose to someone boosting a unit to 20+ points and both my Peter and Leo are on the bottom of my deck i ask myself why do i still play this game.
I'm aware that card games are based mostly on luck, even though some people desperately want to think otherwise, but what feels so bad about gwent is the lack of card draw makes a round very predictable. I mean i know what my opponent is netdecking, i know i have the tools to win that match, but if i don't draw them i also know, from the start of the round with 10 cards in hand, that i'm going to lose and there's nothing i can do about it.
I'm aware that card games are based mostly on luck, even though some people desperately want to think otherwise, but what feels so bad about gwent is the lack of card draw makes a round very predictable. I mean i know what my opponent is netdecking, i know i have the tools to win that match, but if i don't draw them i also know, from the start of the round with 10 cards in hand, that i'm going to lose and there's nothing i can do about it.
You have some good points. Are you using Calveit and tutor cards?
Not much tutoring these days, aside from Menno, but thinning tools i have Roach and brigades, which leaves me a 7 card deck in round 3. I'd say this goes for most non-SK decks.
This game is very frustrating to me when i feel that if my opponent plays with 10 card or 25 cards in this hand, the game would be EXACTLY the same.
This game is very frustrating to me when i feel that if my opponent plays with 10 card or 25 cards in this hand, the game would be EXACTLY the same.
Last edited:
Yeah, good idea against Eithne. Either you don't use tactical advantage and your card gets destroyed, or you use it and it gets cleavered. So the chance is better to use it and hope he didn't draw Cleaver in round 1...what never will happen. One way or the other, you are washed up when you have to start with an engine deck against her...and I always have to start.
The question is: what is a good deck? I can play what I want, when I face a deck that counters mine, it is nearly impossible to win. And I can't use my mulligans wisely, because my best cards are always in my deck and without them I lose. So I take the mulligan and brick with the only card who can brick. For example: The last three games that I played some minutes ago. In the first game, I took the last mulligan in round 3, many good cards in my deck and the only card who could brick was my spell. I did draw the spell and Keira was useless. Second game: I had 4 bronzes left in the deck, without them my Henselt was useless, so I took the mulligans and didn't draw any of them...game lost. Last game: Only my Arbalest could brick, but I had to take the mulligan, because I had Draug, Ves and two other good golds in my deck. Without them no chance to win against Eithne...and what did I draw? ....Arbalest and Henselt was useless...game lost again. So tell me, what is a good deck, or a good play and how should I use my mulligans wise when I draw bad?
The problem is that most of the games I had lost, have nothing to do with me. And I can't do anything about this.
I have to play every faction, so yes, with NR I play an engine deck, because there are not many alternatives left. And I like engine based decks, because hard removal decks use no strategy and no combos and so I don't like to play them.
Post automatically merged:
I can feel it, it's the same with me. How often do I think in round 1...I just need this one card in this matchup and I will win this game...and which card do I not draw in the whole game? You know the answer...
The problem is you can't do anything about this, this is so frustrating. And when I look back what happened to me in this game in the last months...it could not only be bad luck.
Post automatically merged:
The problem with tutor cards is, when I use them, I brick with them too...
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, so I won't go down that road. But it's a fact, that all the people that report something about matchmaking don't complain about losing, but about how they lose. And that's no different for me.
Losing because the opponent has all the needed cards on hand in two or three rounds to counter whatever you try to set up is of course frustrating. Knowing beforehand (maybe not with the very first card, but at least 5 or 6 turns ahead) that you will lose of course is frustrating. Seeing opponents at level 10 with an extremely scrap/ore expensive deck is of course frustrating. You see them make horrible mistakes, yet they win just because their cards are so powerful, that those mistakes don't even matter.
Matchmaking wouldn't be such a big topic, if people would lose to a better played deck. Or by realizing the opponent outsmarted you. But that is very rarely the case.
So how can we see these symptoms, when not touching conspiracy theories. For one, of course Gwent, as any other online game, is a business. If the game can't at least pay the developers' wages, it would be a bad business. Matchmaking is anything else than random. It needs to make sure that people stay in the game. I'm not sure if CDPR has got to that point, but it seems so.
At first glance, the system seems pretty straight forward. You win, your MMR increases, you lose, it decreases. But remember, the MMR is based on 4 out of 5 factions. Nobody is attracted to each and every faction. For example, I feel very uncomfortable with NR. I don't like the style you need to play with it, I don't like the faction cards that are offered. In result, I do win sometimes, but it's a pita for me. But those wins impact MMR. And when I switch back to a faction I like, I face stronger opponents, which urges me to find better cards/synergies to keep up with. A perfect upwards spiral that will keep you in the game.
And there's more to it. With certain decks, and I'm sure all who read this topic can confirm it from their own experiences, there's always a faction that you almost never face. With one of my decks the only MO decks I face are those that don't play MO for the most part, but use pretty much the same cards than I do (except for a few junk bronzes, of course). With another deck I almost never face a SK deck. Etc.
I'm still not sure how to explain this without conspiracy theories, but I'm confident I will figure it out.
In the end, there is of course no need for CDPR to touch matchmaking. It works as they want it to work. And that without any dirty tricks or mean conspiracies. Just by using math. Sure, some people might quit over it, but most will try to stay ahead and therefore invest either time or money. And both is valuable for a game like Gwent.
That said, I don't like the outcome and I wouldn't mind a better matchmaking system. But I don't think, CDPR is doing something fishy here. (For example, with 100 players, it only needs 10 with a winning streak to have 90 frustrated players)
Losing because the opponent has all the needed cards on hand in two or three rounds to counter whatever you try to set up is of course frustrating. Knowing beforehand (maybe not with the very first card, but at least 5 or 6 turns ahead) that you will lose of course is frustrating. Seeing opponents at level 10 with an extremely scrap/ore expensive deck is of course frustrating. You see them make horrible mistakes, yet they win just because their cards are so powerful, that those mistakes don't even matter.
Matchmaking wouldn't be such a big topic, if people would lose to a better played deck. Or by realizing the opponent outsmarted you. But that is very rarely the case.
So how can we see these symptoms, when not touching conspiracy theories. For one, of course Gwent, as any other online game, is a business. If the game can't at least pay the developers' wages, it would be a bad business. Matchmaking is anything else than random. It needs to make sure that people stay in the game. I'm not sure if CDPR has got to that point, but it seems so.
At first glance, the system seems pretty straight forward. You win, your MMR increases, you lose, it decreases. But remember, the MMR is based on 4 out of 5 factions. Nobody is attracted to each and every faction. For example, I feel very uncomfortable with NR. I don't like the style you need to play with it, I don't like the faction cards that are offered. In result, I do win sometimes, but it's a pita for me. But those wins impact MMR. And when I switch back to a faction I like, I face stronger opponents, which urges me to find better cards/synergies to keep up with. A perfect upwards spiral that will keep you in the game.
And there's more to it. With certain decks, and I'm sure all who read this topic can confirm it from their own experiences, there's always a faction that you almost never face. With one of my decks the only MO decks I face are those that don't play MO for the most part, but use pretty much the same cards than I do (except for a few junk bronzes, of course). With another deck I almost never face a SK deck. Etc.
I'm still not sure how to explain this without conspiracy theories, but I'm confident I will figure it out.
In the end, there is of course no need for CDPR to touch matchmaking. It works as they want it to work. And that without any dirty tricks or mean conspiracies. Just by using math. Sure, some people might quit over it, but most will try to stay ahead and therefore invest either time or money. And both is valuable for a game like Gwent.
That said, I don't like the outcome and I wouldn't mind a better matchmaking system. But I don't think, CDPR is doing something fishy here. (For example, with 100 players, it only needs 10 with a winning streak to have 90 frustrated players)
It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theorie, it's a fact. I have collected many informations about my games and it's clear that I am disadvantaged. And I know that CDPR don't care about this, because they don't care about anything what the community says, they only do what their statistics say, far away from the real experience. This game started last year in a horrible way, everything was wrong. After some weeks it was a little bit better, because it couldn't be worse. And since two months everything that they had ignored showed up again. Not a single problem was really solved. Artifacts, skill based game, matchmaking, control - engine problem, no unit decks, bugs...this list is endless. They do a horrible job and noboby seems to care about, in every other business branch they would have replaced the accountable persons. I have heard from several other players, who invest many time in this game, that they need a break of it. Maybe CDPR thinks that they can do what they want, but they have to pay their bill in the future, I make sure that this will happen.
Whatever, I have uninstalled the game today and again, I take another break. I don't want to see anymore, how my opponents win and not's their fault, their constantly luck is so annoying...
Yet you use exactly what conspiracy theorists consider an argument. It is NOT a fact that matchmaking is rigged, just because you lose more often than you win. The only fact from your many informations is that you lose more often than you win. Anything else is a wild guess, a theory about the "why" - ergo a conspiracy theory.
I just played against a level 19 guy that played the almost exact same Ardal deck I use as well (just 1 card was different). I needed around 400 hours to be able to create this deck, and I did it on myself. No tutorial or the like involved. Since I play that Ardal deck, I never, let me repeat, never faced an Eist deck. I would have loved to, because it is a deck that can handle Eist decks pretty easily.
After a disappointing day of losses over losses against starters with some of my preferred decks, I finally decided half an hour ago, to give my Eist deck a try. Boom - first opponent is that level 19 guy with all the cards needed to enjoy an effortless match.
For example, Sigvald is on the board. He doesn't use his 5 str or less seizing Ardal. No, he damages Sigvald by 2 and pulls Sweers (and what a luxury to have free choice between Ardal, Sweers, Muzzle and another Ardal due to Damien de la Tour, all in hand in R3) ! Why not Ardal? The purpose of Ardal is to get a higher strength card with an ability other than deploy. That card will then do its job for you instead of your opponent. When I pulled Sigvald, we both had only 3 cards left. Yet he was confident that there would be at least one non-deploy card of greater value than Sigvald on my hand.
And that was the case! I had exactly one non-deploy card on my hand. One. And it was indeed more valuable than Sigvald. And he wouldn't have got it with Sweers.
There were so many other moves, like me locking his Hefty Helge answered by pulling Imperial Diviner. In R3, in 5th turn, and after he used cards that would have boosted ID. It just didn't stop. I had no chance from the beginning.
What would a conspiracy theorist make out of this? "Obviously it was a bot, installed by CDPR to let me lose. There is certainly no way, that this could have been a player! And even if it was a player, then the matchmaking is rigged for giving me an opponent that is so superior!"
But the only true facts from this are
1) I lost a match
2) The opponent's deck was superior
3) I am frustrated
4) I wish I would face an Eist deck with my Ardal deck
Everything else is not a fact, but pure guessing.