Meta Decks

[Mr_Mugglez]

Just faced another cowardly NG deck...

Lock and removal, nothing else..oh! 1 gold damage unit, which I locked. I won the coinflip. They won 2-0.

FTG

 

[Bruele]

Last two season are terrible, every time same meta deks. This season half match vs francesca...

 

[KenLBlack]

That sounds like it could work, similar to Round Robin Deck Ladder, but with a more incremental difficulty.

100% agree. @4RM3D , I can't believe I missed your earlier post on this topic; I would have said something there, too. Sometime in the past I mentioned something similar in these forums about how the regular ladder does absolutely nothing to "prepare" one for the Pro ladder--assuming you get that far, to begin with. Pro Ladder requires one to use different factions to build up MMR. Not so on the regular ladder. Something like these ideas make total sense. It will prevent people from theoretically making it to Pro rank with one or two decks from their favorite faction. (Rare, I imagine, but in theory you could.) It would have to be examined how well players on lower ranks have completed enough decks to be able to complete the mosaics, though I like @Shelinn's idea of "or xxx wins in a row." Good thinking! Kudos to you both.

 

[nedders]

I retract part of an earlier statement - some of the play is rank. Not just rank, in fact - poisonous and disgusting. Of course I'm mainly referring to Nilfgaards hyperthin. This abomination plays whatever it wants and seemingly always ends up with 3 16+ power units on the board.

The game has shuffled about a bit, but fundamentally it's the same boring tosh I moaned about a year ago, with the same problems. At its' core, it just doesn't - and won't - change.

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

If each leader had 3+ viable different decks....
If expansion brought more viable decks to existing leaders instead of adding new factions with 1 - 2 viable different decks...

 

[Selestes]

I would love to see "ban one leader" option in ranked from some rank, like in tournament.
For example, I see 4 leaders from different factions of my opponent. I can ban one and then they choose one from three left.
In that case, I can ban the deck which irritates me the most.
And everyone will ban different leaders , its a matter of personal choice.
If one leader is most op, then probably many people will ban it. In that case, actions must be done asap.
In that scenario you are not completely forced to win with every faction, but somehow you are restricted.
Maybe this would change meta, people will try another unpopular leaders, because most op will get banned frequently.

But what bothers me most, that we have this problem all the time... And not even one step taken to solve this problem.

 

[Mancoon1980]

I could get behind ban a leader as a start. I'd really rather see creative mode /ladder though where cdpr picks certain decks or leaders for the month and everyone plays different decks

 

[Mr_Mugglez]

I only play ST and with amount of time I play ranked. I'll break into Rank 15 by 2022

 

[Mancoon1980]

I only play ST and with amount of time I play ranked. I'll break into Rank 15 by 2022

I feel you I have over 3000 hours about 1000 of them homecoming and have not once grinded past 11. I used to play mainly NR but that everyone plays them i don't. Been focusing on death wish this season with pretty good results but still can't see ever getting to 7.

 

[nedders]

Maybe the problem needs to be viewed from a different angle. What if the problem is that "ranking up" is perceived to be the only worthwhile achievement in the game, therefore the only way to succeed or 'win' is to play a pre-designed META?

Maybe the issue would go away if the reward book was used a lot more creatively and you got better things for performing as that faction? Then perhaps you only even get onto a ladder once you have literally every leader unlocked, or something?

It's just a random thought, but it's that age old saying "don't hate the player, hate the game". The problem is netdecking. The reason for netdecking is ladder climbing. The drop off in players is because a) it creates boredom, b) there's not enough reason to climb ranks, c) the only way to climb ranks is to play with a netdeck. Maybe we all need to put our attention onto the overall nature of the game? Should "Ranked" be severely restricted to those with a 90% card-count?

Just some ideas for consideration.

 

[ardeathwinggwent]

Maybe the problem needs to be viewed from a different angle. What if the problem is that "ranking up" is perceived to be the only worthwhile achievement in the game, therefore the only way to succeed or 'win' is to play a pre-designed META?

Maybe the issue would go away if the reward book was used a lot more creatively and you got better things for performing as that faction? Then perhaps you only even get onto a ladder once you have literally every leader unlocked, or something?

It's just a random thought, but it's that age old saying "don't hate the player, hate the game". The problem is netdecking. The reason for netdecking is ladder climbing. The drop off in players is because a) it creates boredom, b) there's not enough reason to climb ranks, c) the only way to climb ranks is to play with a netdeck. Maybe we all need to put our attention onto the overall nature of the game? Should "Ranked" be severely restricted to those with a 90% card-count?

Just some ideas for consideration.

I think that's the idea behind contracts - they reward you for doing different stuff, some of it quite weird. Problem is, the weirdest stuff usually gives you a pitiful reward, while completing the daily round wins nets you a lot more reward points and on daily basis. Contracts are also a 1time thing which is bad in perspective. In this regard a meta deck will always net you more rewards compared to the weird-contract-completing-decks.
The economy of the game also kills the variety to an extent. A good deck costs between 5-8k scraps x6 for each faction, you get 30-48k scraps as a requirement to have 1 good deck for each faction. This is not achievable in your first 2-3 months in the game, and most ppl don't last even that long.

 

[nedders]

I think that's the idea behind contracts - they reward you for doing different stuff, some of it quite weird. Problem is, the weirdest stuff usually gives you a pitiful reward, while completing the daily round wins nets you a lot more reward points and on daily basis. Contracts are also a 1time thing which is bad in perspective. In this regard a meta deck will always net you more rewards compared to the weird-contract-completing-decks.
The economy of the game also kills the variety to an extent. A good deck costs between 5-8k scraps x6 for each faction, you get 30-48k scraps as a requirement to have 1 good deck for each faction. This is not achievable in your first 2-3 months in the game, and most ppl don't last even that long.

60 Ore for winning five games as Monsters is rubbish, though. I always swap it out; how can I win as a different deck, when it's so difficult to build a competitive deck with that faction? It's too late now, but winning as a faction should have represented in the Reward Book, i.e. you would have to win as Gernichora to progress in the Gernichora tree, with the ultimate goal then being a truckload of scraps and the new leader skin. All leaders should be available as standard, and they shouldn't be mill-able.

As it stands, I can create the NG hyperthin, win feathers, unlock whatever I want. It doesn't make a lot of sense. A new player should be able to win a few matches and build a better deck. Every keg should have a purple or gold in it - it's ridiculous to churn through a dozen kegs and just get duplicate bronzes.

The latter point I agree with, here's my own recent example - played a game with ST/Eithne deck I built, nothing special, but fairly enjoyable due to thinning (when you get a good deal!) as I prefer to reduce RNG. Was matched up against ST/Eithne. I got absolute slammed at some point by Schirru; had about 30 points wiped out in a single turn. So I thought "man, I really should have Schirru in an Eithne deck, makes sense". 800 scraps to get it, even had to mill a leader (Henrietta, 'cos I hate RNG) to get the additionals. I then played half a dozen games where Schirru was rendered utterly useless - Arachas, Woodland, NG hyperthin, etc. 800 scraps utterly wasted, realised the card was far too situational and you're better off just sticking with boring old Scorch.

My opinion here is you should be able to mill cards for the same, or near the same, value as buying them. That way I can chop and change my cards, keeping my interest in the game alive and also adding variety to opponents who play me.

 

[rrc]

60 Ore for winning five games as Monsters is rubbish, though. I always swap it out; how can I win as a different deck, when it's so difficult to build a competitive deck with that faction? It's too late now, but winning as a faction should have represented in the Reward Book, i.e. you would have to win as Gernichora to progress in the Gernichora tree, with the ultimate goal then being a truckload of scraps and the new leader skin. All leaders should be available as standard, and they shouldn't be mill-able.

As it stands, I can create the NG hyperthin, win feathers, unlock whatever I want. It doesn't make a lot of sense. A new player should be able to win a few matches and build a better deck. Every keg should have a purple or gold in it - it's ridiculous to churn through a dozen kegs and just get duplicate bronzes.

The latter point I agree with, here's my own recent example - played a game with ST/Eithne deck I built, nothing special, but fairly enjoyable due to thinning (when you get a good deal!) as I prefer to reduce RNG. Was matched up against ST/Eithne. I got absolute slammed at some point by Schirru; had about 30 points wiped out in a single turn. So I thought "man, I really should have Schirru in an Eithne deck, makes sense". 800 scraps to get it, even had to mill a leader (Henrietta, 'cos I hate RNG) to get the additionals. I then played half a dozen games where Schirru was rendered utterly useless - Arachas, Woodland, NG hyperthin, etc. 800 scraps utterly wasted, realised the card was far too situational and you're better off just sticking with boring old Scorch.

My opinion here is you should be able to mill cards for the same, or near the same, value as buying them. That way I can chop and change my cards, keeping my interest in the game alive and also adding variety to opponents who play me.

I still remember the earlier days when I considered ever single scrap as a big deal and when I asked in the forum what card should I craft when I got 800 scraps. People suggested Dandelion and Triss. I did my own research too and pondered on the possible decks I might create and which card would fit it etc and finally crafted the legendary gold card. In your case, you see a card and immediately jump on to create it? You can/should only do if you are filthy rich in scraps and not when you are low on resources. Only the individual players should be blamed for doing poor eco management and the game can't do anything with that regard. Do your research before crafting any card, especially if it is Legendary. See if you have the cards which can support it and if it fits the leader you want to play etc.

About milling cards for same value, it is the most ridiculously preposterous suggestion I have ever heard. Basically, if someone has around 7k scrap worth of cards (which is pretty easy and quick to come by), they can simply mill and create any new deck and of they don't like, mill and recraft and so on? No need to contribute back to the game in terms of time and/or money? If that is your expectations, you will never ever ever find a game which matches your expectations.

 

[Mr_Mugglez]

I still remember the earlier days when I considered ever single scrap as a big deal and when I asked in the forum what card should I craft when I got 800 scraps. People suggested Dandelion and Triss. I did my own research too and pondered on the possible decks I might create and which card would fit it etc and finally crafted the legendary gold card. In your case, you see a card and immediately jump on to create it? You can/should only do if you are filthy rich in scraps and not when you are low on resources. Only the individual players should be blamed for doing poor eco management and the game can't do anything with that regard. Do your research before crafting any card, especially if it is Legendary. See if you have the cards which can support it and if it fits the leader you want to play etc.

About milling cards for same value, it is the most ridiculously preposterous suggestion I have ever heard. Basically, if someone has around 7k scrap worth of cards (which is pretty easy and quick to come by), they can simply mill and create any new deck and of they don't like, mill and recraft and so on? No need to contribute back to the game in terms of time and/or money? If that is your expectations, you will never ever ever find a game which matches your expectations.

I'm post alpha (early days) and one of those that can craft anything. I think there's like 2500 of us left from those days. Most stopped playing before and because of HC. I mean, the devs left the game for 6 months while SK ruled. Then came back with a different game. The reapir job has been ongoing ever since but, I think some of those people aren't coming back.

Me? I played other games, new job, girlfriend etc. It's not my life's work this game. It seems in a better place than it was. Have you seen the ladder? haha Wonderful! ST in the top 10 again!

Marvelous.

 

[StanislavOZZO]

Each month, depending on the changes in the update, one leader dominates the game.

It is not doing anything good to the game, imo.

I suggest the number of games people can play using the same leader is limited to 25 a season. This will add much needed variety to the game.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Each month, depending on the changes in the update, one leader dominates the game.

It is not doing anything good to the game, imo.

I suggest the number of games people can play using the same leader is limited to 25 a season. This will add much needed variety to the game.

I prefer some kind of ranking up requirement. Locking players out of certain cards or leaders isn't a good idea.

 

[4RM3D]

I suggest the number of games people can play using the same leader is limited to 25 a season. This will add much needed variety to the game.

That's a terrible idea, locking players out of their cards, as mentioned by others and myself. As with most game designs, you want to incentivize players to pick a different route, not penalize them or, worse, force players. In pro-rank you are required to play different factions, but, at least, you are giving some leeway in which factions you want to play and in what order. I've also made several suggestions in the past, some of them I have explained in The Ranking System is Backwards.

 

[DarkTl]

Maybe the problem needs to be viewed from a different angle. What if the problem is that "ranking up" is perceived to be the only worthwhile achievement in the game, therefore the only way to succeed or 'win' is to play a pre-designed META?

Absolutely. There is much more stuff to do in other card games. Coop modes, fights against "bosses", logical puzzles. Good luck winning there by using only the meta.

But in gwent you only can do one thing: climb the ranked. And that kills a lot of diversification .

 

[RobberCat]

Maybe the problem needs to be viewed from a different angle. What if the problem is that "ranking up" is perceived to be the only worthwhile achievement in the game, therefore the only way to succeed or 'win' is to play a pre-designed META?

Former Pro-Rank player adding his 2 cents: I've been playing Gwent since beta and sticked around in HC. And yes, a few months ago -out of boredom- I've decided to turn "pro-rank" into my main goal for the game.
It took me 2 seasons (achieved in may, iirc) and believe it or not, I haven't played a single ladder match ever since achieving it: not.a.single.one...Even now, I feel like I'm done with the game. I'm not a "competitive" kind of player and the burden coming with that "winning at all cost" feeling is not my thing, too much pressure.
I'd rather love to see (ie) Seasonal Mode featured in friendly matches or other cool casual modes/daily challenges you can play as an alternative to ranked mode...Remember those quests/tutorials from Beta where you had to beat certain factions/decks? That. Would be way better than an "Intelligent Golem" spawning its drones in R1 as a proactive play, I guess.

P.S.
I Loved Thronebreaker! There. I said it.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Today I stubled upon an old thread. 'Suggestion: IMPLEMENT BLACKLISTING AGAIN.
Blacklisting basically means that if you draw a card and mulligan it, you are guaranteed to not draw into the same card again during the current muligan phase.

It struck me, because I now happen to beleive that the reason we see so many net decks, is due to the fact that we cannot play any wierd combo decks with a slight chance of sucess. If you draw your combo round 1, its useless, since its very risky to mulligan those cards. Chances are that you wont see them again. Secondly, if you keep them, there is a good chance that you will get bled in round 2, where you are forced to play out your game winning condition. It's not often it happens when you actually can surprise your opponent, with a weird deck that wins you the game, like a true skill based game should.

Net decks, are a convinient way to play the game, in this current mulligan environment. Net-decks are well optimised, consistent and less frustrating to play.

I think that a major step to improve gwent will be to reintroduce the beta gwent Blaclisting mulligan system. As mentioned, you would be able to mulligan away your combo for round 3, since the mulligan change, increase your chances of drawing into your combo later. This small change will increase the availability of playable decks.