Hola Partci!
The deck you helped me with is finally working for me, in ranked.
Hey, no problem. Hope it still works, though.Hola Partci!
Have fun with the game till you still can.
I think deck diversity and netdecking are just a part of all CCGs. I'd be surprised if adding more cards would change this. Ultimately, the cards do similar things, some have more power than others and that all gets discovered, made into the most efficient and powerful decks and played the most at the top levels of the game. I think if you look at Hearthstone, which has a far larger card database, there are still just a few decks that dominate the top tiers. It's the nature of the games themselves.
Whereas in a game like chess, both sides are equally paired. The only real advantage, and I think it's somewhat slight, is who goes first. Otherwise, everything is even and the deciding factor is skill. There is no RNG, no piece discrepancy or anything. Despite this, for millions of players, chess doesn't get boring.
Until card games figure out how to counter that, it's going to be a part of the game. Many card games resort to luck/RNG to help alleviate this somewhat. I, personally, don't like this approach. The better player should win. The more luck that gets implemented, the worse I think the game will be until you devolve into something like War, which is pure luck. Now, many would argue that they want some luck in the game because that adds variety to each match up. I think that's debatable. Chess, basketball, etc. really don't have luck involved. But, there is a significant amount of player versus player interaction. So, maybe that's an area that can be worked on. Forced PvP interaction.
Another area that could be explored is game matchups or deck changes after match up selection, or even card banning.
Game Matchups: Maybe players need to bring three decks to each matchup and the other player gets to ban one before the start. The game then randomly selects one of the two remaining decks for each player and they battle.
Deck Changes after match selection: Once the match is selected, you see who you are going against and each player gets to make 1, 2 or 3 card changes to their deck. Maybe each deck gets built with 5 substitutes that you can choose from once the match gets set (a Sidebar kind of idea). You see you are going against a weather leader, swap one of your cards for the weather clear on the sidebar. You're going against a potential Sabbath deck, swap in the mandrake on the sideline.
Card Banning: At the start of a match, once each player sees the leader they are facing, you get to ban 1, 2, 3 or whatever cards from that faction which the other player may or may not be running.
I'm sure these aren't all great ideas and could totally break the game (for instance, Greatswords would be auto-banned every SK match, but over time, people wouldn't run greatswords, then bans would switch to something else until the greatswords came back, so there's give and take).
There are other things that could potentially get implemented. How about if cards had multiple abilities and you had to select one of them (some cards have that already, but it could be more subtle like you can have 2 armor or 2 additional damage). Make more, or most cards, have to have some interaction with the opposite side, give more cards abilities to be moved on the board later on, have more cards than weaken rather than just deal damage, etc.
The reality is that almost anything you create to make the game more varied, someone will be able to abuse to make themselves more powerful, which will then get out and become a netdeck. It may even be true that the more complexitiy and the more abilities you put into the game, the more netdecking becomes even stronger. It just creates more opportunities for certain cards, combos, abilities to stronger than others which leads to decks that are inherently better than others. It's very difficult to create a situation where you can have a large number of decks that are all equally powerful unless they are all the same and perhaps you change the way they are played. Maybe you can move cards around, take them off the board to replay later, replace them with other cards, etc. But, many of these things already exist with some cards.
It's worth continuing to think about despite the fact that it may be a hopeless battle other than to constantly change the game so that the powerful decks just keep moving around. This could be done by introducing new cards or by the developer just randomly changing the game every week or two. This week, for instance, they could just ban greatswords, elven swordmaster and slave infantry, for example. The meta would quickly change but I don't know if that would make the game better or not. Perhaps.
Hopefully people keep tossing out ideas. It's an interesting conversation.
Whereas in a game like chess, both sides are equally paired. The only real advantage, and I think it's somewhat slight, is who goes first. Otherwise, everything is even and the deciding factor is skill. There is no RNG, no piece discrepancy or anything. Despite this, for millions of players, chess doesn't get boring.
Until card games figure out how to counter that, it's going to be a part of the game. Many card games resort to luck/RNG to help alleviate this somewhat. I, personally, don't like this approach. The better player should win. The more luck that gets implemented, the worse I think the game will be until you devolve into something like War, which is pure luck. Now, many would argue that they want some luck in the game because that adds variety to each match up. I think that's debatable. Chess, basketball, etc. really don't have luck involved. But, there is a significant amount of player versus player interaction. So, maybe that's an area that can be worked on. Forced PvP interaction.
Another area that could be explored is game matchups or deck changes after match up selection, or even card banning.
Game Matchups: Maybe players need to bring three decks to each matchup and the other player gets to ban one before the start. The game then randomly selects one of the two remaining decks for each player and they battle.
Deck Changes after match selection: Once the match is selected, you see who you are going against and each player gets to make 1, 2 or 3 card changes to their deck. Maybe each deck gets built with 5 substitutes that you can choose from once the match gets set (a Sidebar kind of idea). You see you are going against a weather leader, swap one of your cards for the weather clear on the sidebar. You're going against a potential Sabbath deck, swap in the mandrake on the sideline.
Card Banning: At the start of a match, once each player sees the leader they are facing, you get to ban 1, 2, 3 or whatever cards from that faction which the other player may or may not be running.
I'm sure these aren't all great ideas and could totally break the game (for instance, Greatswords would be auto-banned every SK match, but over time, people wouldn't run greatswords, then bans would switch to something else until the greatswords came back, so there's give and take).
There are other things that could potentially get implemented. How about if cards had multiple abilities and you had to select one of them (some cards have that already, but it could be more subtle like you can have 2 armor or 2 additional damage). Make more, or most cards, have to have some interaction with the opposite side, give more cards abilities to be moved on the board later on, have more cards than weaken rather than just deal damage, etc.
The reality is that almost anything you create to make the game more varied, someone will be able to abuse to make themselves more powerful, which will then get out and become a netdeck. It may even be true that the more complexitiy and the more abilities you put into the game, the more netdecking becomes even stronger. It just creates more opportunities for certain cards, combos, abilities to stronger than others which leads to decks that are inherently better than others. It's very difficult to create a situation where you can have a large number of decks that are all equally powerful unless they are all the same and perhaps you change the way they are played. Maybe you can move cards around, take them off the board to replay later, replace them with other cards, etc. But, many of these things already exist with some cards.
It's worth continuing to think about despite the fact that it may be a hopeless battle other than to constantly change the game so that the powerful decks just keep moving around. This could be done by introducing new cards or by the developer just randomly changing the game every week or two. This week, for instance, they could just ban greatswords, elven swordmaster and slave infantry, for example. The meta would quickly change but I don't know if that would make the game better or not. Perhaps.
Hopefully people keep tossing out ideas. It's an interesting conversation.
I don't understand why everyone is cribbing about net decking (as a matter of fact, I don't use net decks at all. I have my own deck and I have never used any abusive cards and I never used Skellige or VW or any other pathetic decks). Net decking or copying someone else's intellect is nothing new at all. Every single game has the same scenario. If you play Counter Strike, you will know that at pro level, for every map there are only two or three different approaches only taken. Every single freaking round, the same things happen. It is in the execution and luck the teams win. If you have played Clash Of Clans you can know this too. Every single freaking layout you face after a good trophies/mmr are identical. Maximum two or three variations of the same crappy layouts.
I am sure that every single multi-player game will only have a few variation, few strategies available. You basically do and face the same thing again and again and it is in your execution and luck you win. Of course, I don't support or encourage copying net decks without improvising anything. It is just lame. But it is how all the games are and is not a unique problem of Gwent.
I am sure that every single multi-player game will only have a few variation, few strategies available. You basically do and face the same thing again and again and it is in your execution and luck you win. Of course, I don't support or encourage copying net decks without improvising anything. It is just lame. But it is how all the games are and is not a unique problem of Gwent.
In a game were "finger"-skills are necessary it is a solid way to balance it. but in a strategy came without any motion, no reflex or something similar it is boring as hell. Imagine chess would only have 2 or 3 openings, nobody would play it.
Because of the REWARDS.
"Winner take all, looser get none (or less)", simple as that. Or you like loosing, does anybody like loosing?
Maybe if looser get more reward than winner maybe there will be more fun deck or just Insta-forfeit. (Just kidding)
How about we get reward for the amount of match we play in the whole season no mater what your rank is (winner may have some cosmetic reward) then people have no reason to netdecking (Ex: you win you get a keg, you lose, get what still get a keg, so why should you play a boring netdeck than your own fun deck, see ), Gwent then become: "Just play and you're all Rewarded the SAME"
P/s: Don't get me wrong, i have no problem with netdecking. I myself netdecking too. Want to know why, yeah! you're right: "Because of the REWARDS."
"Winner take all, looser get none (or less)", simple as that. Or you like loosing, does anybody like loosing?
Maybe if looser get more reward than winner maybe there will be more fun deck or just Insta-forfeit. (Just kidding)
How about we get reward for the amount of match we play in the whole season no mater what your rank is (winner may have some cosmetic reward) then people have no reason to netdecking (Ex: you win you get a keg, you lose, get what still get a keg, so why should you play a boring netdeck than your own fun deck, see
), Gwent then become: "Just play and you're all Rewarded the SAME"P/s: Don't get me wrong, i have no problem with netdecking. I myself netdecking too. Want to know why, yeah! you're right: "Because of the REWARDS."
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know, I think the flavor of the day as you put it is definitely Foltest Armor (Redrame's variant. He reached Top #1 position in the ladder and for the last week it was all over the place). This thing has no exploitable weakness that I can find.
Calveit is a pretty strong deck, and it seems to be increasingly common. I couldn't find the variant that I've encountered the most though. I saw the lists of Freddy and McBeard but there seems to be one variant around with Daerlan and Fire scorpions, sometimes without even using Nova, but Leo Bonhart. I met a dude that was hella lucky with it and he was playing second as well. He had Cynthia in his opening hand, he started with that, then played Calveit. Despite the fact there were 2 golems, a daerlan soldier, 2 fire scorpions, cahir and roach in his deck, he pulled an alchemist and played more golems. Then played Dandelion: Poet, didn't draw Roach but played it, and kept on playing massive amounts of tempo, with all of his anti synergy not seemingly phasing him even a bit, as he drew everything he needed, and played the rest. I don't know if that's a fringe case, is the problem, as I see that Calveit reveal variant more and more often and only once, did my opponent get Roach in his hand. Every other time, they play what they need just fine.
The Nova Calveit has insane anti-synergy between the golds and Roach because Vilgefortz and Dandelion: Poet can risk drawing the horsey while Cahir and Ciri: Nova are both late game plays, at a time when you hope to have played Roach out already ( so that you can potentially shuffle it back in with Assire).
Anyway the general point is, there seems to be a lot of luck influencing the outcome the last few days. But especially Foltest Armor, I can't find any exploitable weakness against.
I really hope they address the netdecking issue by putting T1 and T2 decks out of site of new players. Why should someone who's put in 400+ hours have the same deck as a new player? It's just wrong. It was wrong a year ago and it's still wrong now. Put me off ranked because I kept coming up against T1 and T2 decks at very low rank indeed!
How they would go about it is a very difficult task. Maybe increasing the cost of certain cards every month when it's obvious they are seeing a lot of extremely high play. And fair play to the streamers who spend SO much time playing the game that they become very clever indeed with the game. Their talent should not be accessible to new players. Those people (me included) have no right to be using such well worked out and clever decks.
To sum up. If i'm playing in the top ranks I expet to see these amazing decks. If i'm at rank 2 or 5? I don't want tp see them. Don't think it's healthy for the game at all.
Just my opinion of course! I hope nobody gets their nekkers in a twist over it.
How they would go about it is a very difficult task. Maybe increasing the cost of certain cards every month when it's obvious they are seeing a lot of extremely high play. And fair play to the streamers who spend SO much time playing the game that they become very clever indeed with the game. Their talent should not be accessible to new players. Those people (me included) have no right to be using such well worked out and clever decks.
To sum up. If i'm playing in the top ranks I expet to see these amazing decks. If i'm at rank 2 or 5? I don't want tp see them. Don't think it's healthy for the game at all.
Just my opinion of course! I hope nobody gets their nekkers in a twist over it.
Netdecks are not the problem, Cdpr is, without monthly balance patches you cant have more arhetypes viable. (which they promised)
Like braindead alchemy, easy to smash beer and buff calveit (so sick of mandrake on calveit ) cahir should not be +1point leader
i barely survive at rank 19 with crappy aguara-seltkirk meme.
Like braindead alchemy, easy to smash beer and buff calveit (so sick of mandrake on calveit ) cahir should not be +1point leader
i barely survive at rank 19 with crappy aguara-seltkirk meme.
Last edited by a moderator:
Noobgaard been broken for a looooong time, too many broken cards to list. Insane tempo and can thin it without breaking a sweat to 0-2 cards left. Even their lol decks solid.
Well every game needs a crutch, an ez mode of sorts..
Well every game needs a crutch, an ez mode of sorts..
Actually most of the official archetypes, not just Nilfgaard's, but every faction's, have been rendered obsolete and underpowered. Exceptions are Alchemy, Greatswords, Axemen, Consume, Swap and Blue Stripes Foltest which is "ok"
Most of Nilfgaard's decks, including Alchemy, are not particularly easy to play with. Alchemy and Slaves are just the easiest, that's all. Deckbuilding with Nilfgaard is also not easy either, as most of their cards fit in very specific archetypes, or won't fit in the deck you are trying to make at all.
So, most except for 6-7 viable decks? hmmm.
Deckbuilding in NG is not easy... what does that even mean? You either have those cards or you don't. Same as with every other deck.
Also, saying that Alchemy and Soldiers are not particularly easy to play is disingenuous. These are prob the next easiest decks to play after Veterans.
Yes actually. The original "official" archetypes were 2 for each faction with about 1 - 2 more added during the open beta period and Midwinter.
NG: Soldiers, Spies, Reveal, Alchemy
SK: Self Damage ( GS), Damage ( Axemen), Cursed, Discard (Tuirseach got expanded upon during Midwinter)
ST: Swap, Handbuff, Spells, Movement (Originally, Elves and Dwarves during the closed beta, Elves focusing more on ambush and Vrihedd Neophytes, Dwarves more on resilience)
NR: Machines, Swarm (Blue Stripes), Armor, Cursed
MO: Hazards, Consume, Moonlight, Deathwish
In the case of SK, the damage archetype was originally one, but split into self damage and damage later on. You probably remember.
For NG, Spies and Reveal, so fully half of them, aren't viable. For NR, Cursed and Machines (talking about archetypes. I'll get to hybrid decks later on) are also not really viable anymore. Nor is armor as a full archetype. For Monsters, we've got Hazards (Eredin Frost, Dagon Fog) and Moonlight, which are both not viable. Deathwish barely performs in the very high ranks, because of GS which counter it hard.
ST has Swap which works, but nothing else is as good.
In terms of official archetypes, SK has it better than pretty much most factions, as Veterans could be considered an official archetype after Midwinter, so they get 3 very viable archetypes and one which has certain variants that work (Cursed)
What's the point? viable decks exist all over. Viable official archetypes, not so many. Most of the decks we see are Hybrids. Even the Deathwish variant is a hybrid of Deathwish and hazards. Foltest in particular is often a hybrid, sometimes focusing more on armor, sometimes on Blue stripes and often packing some machines.
And here's what I mean by deckbuilding with NG being hard. Their cards, most or all of them, belong to official archetypes and won't work outside those. Unlike the other factions, in which you can make excellent hybrid decks (Foltest - Redrame's Redanians), In NG, your deck will be any of these 4, or Mill, usually, rarely diverting, even a little, from its targeted goal. While there are cards in NG's pool which have a more general purpose, most, by an extreme, amount, are designed with their parent archetype in mind. You can't really make a hybrid deck, at least not as easily as you can with factions such as SK, MO, NR, or ST. Coincidentally every other faction out there.
They aren't necessarily hard. But they aren't easy. In my opinion always. I've tried alchemy a LOT. It took ages to learn how to play and build my own functional alchemy deck. Reveal and Spies are a lot more difficult to play than Alchemy. Especially the latter, notoriously so, but even the former requires tight navigation to make sure you aren't stuck in a short round 3. Greatswords, Vets, Deathwish, Swap, Frost, NR Hybrids, not necessarily harder to come up with in the first place, but definitely easier to pilot IMO. Alchemy ranks in between, as harder than the aforementioned but easier than Spies, Reveal, Axemen, NR Cursed (and now, with the patch changes, Machines), etc.
Of course that's just my opinion. Certain decks require certain mindsets. Maybe it just took me this long to "tune" into Alchemy's mindset alright. But that has been my experience overall. Adjusting and learning to play alchemy efficiently took me longer than pretty much every other deck in the game except Spies, Nekkers and Axemen
Emhyr Handbuff isn't I agree.
Alchemy though, well, it needs to be more developed to reach the same level as the others, as it lacks the Faction Golds and Silvers that fit in. I agree on that. It is based on too many Neutral cards. Though I think it is pretty much an archetype.
Casual mode is my prefered mode to test new deck ideas or to play fun decks ... sadly i cant play them there because i play against comp decks t1/t2 there all the time.
10 games in a row against decks that also most played in Ranked. i realy hate this about Gwent.
I realy dont understand why people feel the need to netdeck comp decks and then play them in casual mode.
10 games in a row against decks that also most played in Ranked. i realy hate this about Gwent.
I realy dont understand why people feel the need to netdeck comp decks and then play them in casual mode.
Well, once homecoming is out there, you should be able to experiment a bit more in casual, since the meta is not established yet.
Moved you to a thread where you can find more insights on this topic.