Netdecking Discussion [Why is everyone doing it?]

[Jeydra]

Dear Community

warning : this post contain curiosity and a little of salt.

During this late month, i just realize that most of my opponent which are 100% netdecker eg. great sword, shupe, deathwish dagon etc. (4000 mmr +, -)

These type of people mostly keep mocking me that was experimenting fun deck and losing to their perfect netdeck. they look highly proud of themselves. and without gg aftermatch

(now i try to experiment deck that look like mill but not a mill to trick people that think i am a mill but actually not a mill lolol)

how can these people be so proud of winning condition based on 100% copy other player deck ?

these day i rarely find original deck player with a sense of humor and fun to play with.

Thanks.

1) People running these decks might not be netdecking. It's reasonably obvious what cards synergize with Greatswords. It's equally obvious to use all these cards in the same deck. I've been top 100 with a Moonlight deck of my own design; something like 20? cards overlap other Moonlight decks that other people have made.
2) Ever heard of "to the victor goes the spoils"? I would rather win with a netdeck than lose.
3) If you play enough, you explore the entire metagame and you won't meet any original decks anymore. E.g. some time ago I ran into an Arachas Queen swarm deck with Triss: Butterfly, Yennefer and Draug. That is definitely rare, but I've played against it, it's no longer original to me.

I have some questions for you as well.

1) Why do you NOT netdeck? Do you think you are smarter than other people who post their winning decklists? Do you think you can make decks better than them?
2) If you answer yes to the above: if you are smarter, why do you also lose to these netdeckers? If you answer no: why aren't you doing the smart thing?
3) What makes you so attracted to playing bad decks? These decks you come up with that don't use established strategies - they're almost invariably bad. Why are you so keen to play them then?

 

[devivre]

Just a reminder to keep this discussion respectful.


I agree that you don't need to netdeck to get to a point where a deck is similar to certain decks on Gwentdb. For most archetypes there are some pretty obvious picks. And of course while ranking up you might see certain popular combo's you want to have in your own deck too.

Blaming netdeckers won't get us far. At the same time not netdecking obviously has nothing to do with wanting to play bad decks. I think in the end it all comes down to the point that some archetypes are stronger than others. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Quinaz]

Each faction has its own META based on the current state of the game. It doesn't matter what competitive game you play, The meta will always be prevailant because its proven and effective.

Why wouldn't anyone play GS right now for example? They are meta more than any archetype and hold their own against almost any matchup.

Of course people will play and win with them until CDPR shifts the meta by buffing other cards or nerfing GS. Either way the meta will always exist and people will always play with what wins them games, Can you blame them?

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Dear Community

warning : this post contain curiosity and a little of salt.

During this late month, i just realize that most of my opponent which are 100% netdecker eg. great sword, shupe, deathwish dagon etc. (4000 mmr +, -)

Playing greatsword is not proof of netdecking. Same goes with Dagon deathwish.

These type of people mostly keep mocking me that was experimenting fun deck and losing to their perfect netdeck. they look highly proud of themselves. and without gg aftermatch

The emotes almsot always sound arrogant because that's just the way they sound. I use Eredin and his good game emote says "You would make a good slave". Doesn't sound nice does it?

(now i try to experiment deck that look like mill but not a mill to trick people that think i am a mill but actually not a mill lolol)

how can these people be so proud of winning condition based on 100% copy other player deck ?

these day i rarely find original deck player with a sense of humor and fun to play with.

Thanks.

You don't find original decks because there aren't that many good decks to play. Very intelligent people who play this game constantly look for these decks and play them first. Then people see it and either use the same deck or something similar. Again you don't know how the other player is feeling other than they are probably happy with winning. People tend to like winning.

 

[lightmatter]

Blaming every loss to any deck on "netdeckers" is this game's version of the game is rigged against me... that you can find in virtually every forum/feedback for every game.

The only people complaining about this type of thing are people that are really bad at games. All games. In general.

 

[Archpriest]

From day one of CB I have never encountered a winning player complaining about netdecking. Because they understand that, at some point after trial and error, you basically arrive to the same set of cards as others do... each meta. The deviation, as @Jeydra astutely pointed out, is usually 4-5 cards. Sometimes even less, depending on the said meta. Having complete diversity is impossible.
Those who complain need to realise that people usually play games to win. The competition is paramount to the MP games. And playing non-optimised decks won't get you there.

 

[lightmatter]

Those who complain need to realise that people usually play games to win. The competition is paramount to the MP games. And playing non-optimised decks won't get you there.

Exactly.

If you want border-line random hands that may or may not be optimal, play Arena mode

 

[Iuliandrei]

Those who complain need to realise that people usually play games to win. The competition is paramount to the MP games. And playing non-optimised decks won't get you there.

I guess that's the problem then, that the game itself doesn't matter. This would also make any complains regarding flavor, game identity and how fun the game is quite hypocritical.

The only people complaining about this type of thing are people that are really bad at games. All games. In general.

Yes, when something is beyond your understanding, pretend they are just bad at games. I would say i'm curious of the thought process that led you to this conclusion but i have a feeling there isn't any.
I mean it's clearly impossible for people to get bored of playing the same match over and over again, and in every match to perform the exact same sequence, right? As long the MMR goes up, the game should be fun, i guess that's your level of thinking.

 

[Laveley]

This would also make any complains regarding flavor, game identity and how fun the game is quite hypocritical.

How do you even know people necessarily netdeck? Like already stated, people tend to play what they think its good, and since people have brains, frequently they will arrive at the same conclusions on what is good without necessarily copying each other, but through trial and error and personal experience. Its only natural that after a period of time some specific decks and strategies become more popular precisely because they are more efficient and not because people are blindly copying someones else builds.

Thats the very essence of mettagame.

Its very difficult to have sleeper OP cards/strategies on any game. If something its good it will probably be discovered fast and people will start to play it en masse just because, well, its good.

On CB we didnt had gwentdb, community was restricted and "netdeck" practically non-existent and even so after a few months everybody was playing the same shitt. The good shitt.

Same thing with chess. Way before internet even existed good players and masters around the world frequently used the same openings and same strategies not because they were copying each other, but because they naturally came to the same conclusions on what was the best moves.

 

[Mancoon1980]

Dear Community

warning : this post contain curiosity and a little of salt.

During this late month, i just realize that most of my opponent which are 100% netdecker eg. great sword, shupe, deathwish dagon etc. (4000 mmr +, -)

These type of people mostly keep mocking me that was experimenting fun deck and losing to their perfect netdeck. they look highly proud of themselves. and without gg aftermatch

(now i try to experiment deck that look like mill but not a mill to trick people that think i am a mill but actually not a mill lolol)

how can these people be so proud of winning condition based on 100% copy other player deck ?

these day i rarely find original deck player with a sense of humor and fun to play with.

Thanks.

There are alot of uncreative losers out there. Simple as that. They are usually the ones who netdeck and claim they don't. There was a small period where I played against all types of decks but last day I played was all the same reveal and greatsword decks. So I have not been back in the last 2 weeks.

 

[Jeydra]

There are alot of uncreative losers out there. Simple as that. They are usually the ones who netdeck and claim they don't. There was a small period where I played against all types of decks but last day I played was all the same reveal and greatsword decks. So I have not been back in the last 2 weeks.

You mean uncreative winners. The real "losers" are the ones who don't netdeck, lose, and claim they're good.

Playing against reveal & GS every game ought to be good for you, since it lets you metagame against them (both decks are vulnerable to removal) and make it to 4500 MMR.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

There are alot of uncreative losers out there. Simple as that. They are usually the ones who netdeck and claim they don't. There was a small period where I played against all types of decks but last day I played was all the same reveal and greatsword decks. So I have not been back in the last 2 weeks.

I have been playing since day 1 of closed beta and I have played about every possible way. Making a deck from scratch, being inspired by a concept and making the deck around that concept, taking someone else's deck and trying it out then either keeping it or changing it.

I don't really think any one way is better than any other and I don't get the people trying to tell others how to play a game. It's not even possible to play this game and not learn from other decks you see or hear about. That's a natural part of these games.

 

[devivre]

Calling people "Losers" because they netdeck (or saying the same because they don't) obviously isn't the best way to continue this discussion...

If we continue like this I have to assume that the discussion has reached its end and close the thread. So please stay respectful.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

There was a small period where I played against all types of decks but last day I played was all the same reveal and greatsword decks.

This doesn't happen because of netdecking though. It happens because the game always seems to reach a point where a few deck concepts are far superior to all of the alternatives. It could be certain factions end up superior to the rest or certain concepts within a faction are superior to the other options for the faction.

Even if you could remove all forms of deck sharing players would naturally find themselves reaching this point. The point where they recognize the most optimal build they can run for a specific faction. Even if they didn't think of it themselves they would figure it out by playing against the more successful concepts.

None of this even addresses the fact netdecking, by itself, isn't going to give you a free ride. You still have to know the idea behind the deck, match-ups, general game concepts and how to adjust your play when the game doesn't go according to plan. A deck list and a generalized guide isn't going to get it done.

On another note.... Simple question, how do you prevent netdecking?

 

[4RM3D]

On another note.... Simple question, how do you prevent netdecking?

You cannot, nor should you want to. You can, however, incentivize players to try something different.

For ranked: The MMR Bonus System
For casual: The Card Bonus System

 

[Restlessdingo32]

You cannot, nor should you want to. You can, however, incentivize players to try something different.

For ranked: The MMR Bonus System
For casual: The Card Bonus System

Incentives to play something different is a possibility. Neither of these options is without it's own set of problems though.

Take the card bonus system. This works until players reach a point where they don't need more of the bonuses the system provides. Most players in casual running the popular netdecks likely fall into one of two camps. They are long-time players with very large card collections, vast experience in ranked and don't necessarily need more of the in-game... currency. Or, they are new players trying to rack up wins quickly to get there. The incentive isn't going to impact the first camp, and it only helps the second camp if they have the cards with bonuses tied to them in their collection.

The MMR system is a good idea. Giving free MMR is probably a point of contention in general, for obvious reasons. Here it's not a problem because playing all factions instead of a single faction means more exposure to the intricacies of each faction/archetype. It takes time to master a popular archetype within a faction. It requires more player skill to be exceptional with every popular archetype, as opposed to mastering one and learning all of it's match-ups. More skill, more MMR, seems fair.

Why do we need to do this at all though? Why does the game always get reduced to one or two archetypes dominating for each faction, with everything else being sub-optimal? Incentives in this case are more of a workaround. It's treating the symptoms of the problem. It's not tackling the problem directly and attempting to correct it. Answering the why here, pondering it and thinking of a way to prevent it from happening is a better solution, IMO.

 

[4RM3D]

Incentives in this case are more of a workaround. It's treating the symptoms of the problem. It's not tackling the problem directly and attempting to correct it. Answering the why here, pondering it and thinking of a way to prevent it from happening is a better solution, IMO.

You are correct. The best solution is removing the problem alltogether, at its roots. This, however, requires a detailed analysis of why it's such a big issue in Gwent and, even more importantly, a way to fix it. But this goes beyond the scope of a (simple) suggestion.

 

[Laveley]

This, however, requires a detailed analysis of why it's such a big issue in Gwent

Because gwent still have a relatively small card pool. Also, couple that with the "soft delete anything remotely good on the game" policy of the devs since CB and the players are left with a very restrictive "less worse" options of cards. That tends naturally to one or two archetypes totally dominating the metta since everything else is just too shitty to see play.

 

[Morh_Shion]

Yes I think this could go with the situation of balacing cards discussion: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/balancing-cards-the-way-you-want.10971026/

When we start to see so cards be used across different decks/factions and even strategies that means that are at least slight more powerful than all the others.
Which makes me think would be appreciated if the developers could keep track of netdeckings, and start to fine tuning the "numbers" in the cards.

The idea behind this is give unpopular cards the chance to compete with the ones that are popular enough.

And sometimes is not just a matter of nerf a card, but maybe a lot of cards are not just been played in decks because they don't offer much.

Find a way to give each faction a chance to have a T1 deck is crucial, and then variations of the deck that don't have all the top cards to combo with in the most optimal way, but at least the alternative cards to you are using as a replacement for achieve some functions/combos in your deck will make your deck fit in a T2, and T3 category.

To demonstrate that, I will take the example of Monsters deck.
Atm they are classified as T2, in that range you have the Deathwish and Consumer decks. None of them have Celaeno Harpy, even that this card have deathwish effect that combines with Consume card abilities.
Arachas Queen would benefit from the Harpy eggs, although Arachas consumes 3 units while Harpy spawn only 2 eggs, so not 100% in sync... I agree 3 eggs would leave the Arachas overpowerful, but that could be balanced bringing down the boost of the consumed eggs to only +1, so each egg would give 2 of power addition to Arachas, with that sense Harpy would generate a less outcome in the end, so to balance that we could increase to 2 the power of the unit Harpy Hatchling that is spawned after the death/consummation of the egg, or leave it as 1 but give them a resilience ability, or maybe the effect to spawn a new card called Harpy drones, this last option would be similar to effect created by the combo Arachas Behemoth that can spawn Arachas Hatchiling when you consume a unit, and Arachas Hatchiling can spawn Arachas drones.
Btw Arachas Behemoth and Arachas drones does not show up in the current meta...

So to resume, game still needs to find it's way to have more strategies available for each faction, as well make each faction a way to have T1, T2 and T3 decks, and in addition to that would be nice if different faction could have more than one strategy, like each faction could have strategies that triggers damage over time, spawn strategy, debuff strategy, draw and swap strategy, resilience strategy(I really want to see a T1 deck with this), consumable/deathwish/ressurect strategy...
In that sense some factions will perform better with some strategies them others, but at least each faction will have variety, and this variety will give each faction the possibility to have decks in different tier.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Because gwent still have a relatively small card pool.

Not sure I buy this one anymore. The card pool has become larger but there hasn't been a lot of ground gained toward fixing this particular problem. Throwing more cards at it is a brute force approach. You can have as many cards as you want but if a handful are better options everyone is going to gravitate toward those better options. It only gets compounded when those better options only have synergy with a few other options.

You are correct. The best solution is removing the problem alltogether, at its roots. This, however, requires a detailed analysis of why it's such a big issue in Gwent and, even more importantly, a way to fix it. But this goes beyond the scope of a (simple) suggestion.

Fair enough. This is the purpose of a beta test. Find bugs/issues and fix/address them. Presumably it's hard to get any reliable detailed analysis if core mechanics repeatedly change.

It may be important to distinguish between making a problem go away and correcting it too . It could be argued a lot of changes ended up doing the former of the two. It could also be argued this approach was the easy road to take, not necessarily the ideal road.

As a minor edit, one has to wonder if for most of OB the balance has been secondary to throwing ideas into the game, in some form or another, to see if they fit in the big picture. Seeing a card like Ciri: Nova followed by the concept of 2 copies of each bronze getting discussed comes to mind. I suppose it makes sense for the developers to do exploring in the beta...