Not enjoyable. But probably good.

[Ihear_BlueColors]

Not enjoyable. But probably good.

This game is too complex or confusing for me. But maybe it was a useful experience.

One thing though. That reveal deck feels like more bullshit than spying. Spying with a small range of possibilities is scary but can be prepared for.

 

[fostdecile]

I don't think it's too complex. I can say that this game is the easiest to understand among all card games. Just quite unexpected after coming from Witcher 3 gwent and surprised by the difference

 

[rctboy95]

Imo the game is becoming easier with every patch, the decks that are good now aren't the most difficult. The little rng there is just takes over on who wins.

 

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Imo the game is becoming less Gwent with each patch.

 

[NateBeruk]

Yea its a bit mroe complicated and has more depths than any other card game i've ever played i guess that's why most of the hearthstone pros moved to gwent

 

[Ihear_BlueColors]

I don't think it's too complex. I can say that this game is the easiest to understand among all card games. Just quite unexpected after coming from Witcher 3 gwent and surprised by the difference

I wouldn't know about that.

 

[lomvicmarko]

That reveal deck feels like more bullshit

It is bullshit

 

[TheShift]

It is bullshit

Although I would never say it's broken

but yeah ... I cringe when I see NG as the opponent
it's just wrong on so many levels
Half the time I feel they would do pretty good ..without even looking at my entire hand

 

[lomvicmarko]

Although I would never say it's broken

but yeah ... I cringe when I see NG as the opponent
it's just wrong on so many levels
Half the time I feel they would do pretty good ..without even looking at my entire hand

Yeah that is what scares me it does well even without seeing my hand and when I play against it
I almost rope every turn thinking every possible interaction because I know that bastard sees my whole hand
and I can't afford a single mistake. Opponent seeing my hand really affects my deck.
It goes on my nerves because it takes away what I like about card game. When he sees my hand you might as well give me
button to auto resolve lol.

 

[TheShift]

Yeah that is what scares me it does well even without seeing my hand and when I play against it
I almost rope every turn thinking every possible interaction because I know that bastard sees my whole hand
and I can't afford a single mistake. Opponent seeing my hand really affects my deck.
It goes on my nerves because it takes away what I like about card game. When he sees my hand you might as well give me
button to auto resolve lol.

A game kinda built around bluffing..this deck kinda just throws all that out the window...

 

[lomvicmarko]

I hate when people say, well you already know what he is running. Well if that is the case then reveal your hand and leave mine alone lol

 

[TheShift]

It's true.. I know exactly (for the most part) what it uses
which in turns makes me hesitant to play a card lol

 

[lomvicmarko]

Pretty much, he can bluff you but you can't bluff him and it is so easy for him to do it.

 

[Cantina12]

Coming from Magic, this game is easy. In Magic, well, there are some crazy ass moves I’ve seen that would put the top amazing ones here to shame.

As for reveal decks, yes, yes, they are bullshit. But more so the Spotters. Really? This is what Gwent has come too? Just have a player reveal my hand all the while boosting three maybe four cards in their hand; to which I can do nothing about until they are played.

And it’s just not the reveal decks, it’s the other decks with this sodding boost in hand shit.

Want to buff an elf using a Hakwer card? Fine.

NR Radovid has become a special spamming card fest just to get the Bloody Baron up.

Dwarven decks have become how much boosts I can use on them.

Consume decks are pretty much the same as Dwarven decks.

When you see Dagon or Imerilith leader you know weather spamming is going to happen.

Nilf decks, well there are two, one with Reveal and the other running specials and Witchers.

As for Skellie, those still running axemen weather spam and the other Queensguard with discard mixed in along with in-hand boosting Captain cards times 3.

There is no variety with this game. You see a leader card and you generally know what to expect and brace yourself for the migraine to follow.

I used to play this game a quite a lot during the day. Now? I maybe only play two or three games before I have had enough. Were as with W3 Gwent, I spent more time playing it then the actual game.

Reveal decks need to be toned way down.

Special cards should have their own section in deck building AND be limited to five per deck.

The minimum number of units one can have in their deck is 20.

In-hand boosting cards should be made silver and the card can only be boosted in your hand/on the board and be capped to 10.

The Operator card should be made gold.

Reavers should not gain extra point boost if a forth Reaver is played, in-hand, in your deck or on the board.

Bronze and Silver cards should have a cap on how much boost it can have.

Johnny should only be able to copy a card that is IN your players hand.

Queensguard can only be resurrected twice.

Axemen do, two damage on a random enemy and are boosted by the damage done.

I know many people will not agree with my opinions/suggestions and that is OK. I merely stating that the above suggestions are the lingering issues I still see in this game.

As of right now, this game is less fun then when I started, do to all the crap people are abusing just to win.

I get it. You want to win. So do I. But people don't need to be a'holes bout it.

 

[lomvicmarko]

Cantina12

I agree on lots of points and I don't think any of them are unreasonable since those would probably make game streamlined and enjoyable. I just made a thread one of direct
causes for lack of verity is archetype cards that can't be played with different cards like for example neophyte and marksman. That would be ok if we had lots of cards
to play around but when you give me option between 5 bronze cards to chose outside those archetypes no wonder you see them in every corner.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I strongly disagree. Following significant changes this game can feel complex. Once the meta settles for a given MMR range it's the exact opposite. It becomes about matchups, with your own deck having, at most, a few conditions it either has to meet or deny an opponent deck to win the game vs the given matchup. Since it ends up being common for the herd to flock to the meta decks it tends to become a matter of seeing the matchups, understanding the meta and determining the conditions needed to beat the matchup in question.

To provide an example, let's use MS Swarm decks as a reference point, since it appears popular. Using my own deck, the rules are simple. They Fog, I clear it. They toss out Harpies/spawn units, I immediately remove them from the board. The entire goal is to limit them from loading up their board, thus blocking their ability to gain value from any buff mechanics they rely upon to win the game. Additionally, this minimizes or outright prevents carry-over. Beyond that, the goal is to force long rounds, especially R2. If I execute this approach and get reasonable draws, they lose the game. With very good draws they may even get 2-0'd. If I cannot do this well, I lose the game. For most matchups this holds true. The only variability is the rules change with the matchup, and there is a bit of RNG to card draws and the coinflip.

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

To provide an example, let's use MS Swarm decks as a reference point, since it appears popular. Using my own deck, the rules are simple. They Fog, I clear it. They toss out Harpies/spawn units, I immediately remove them from the board. The entire goal is to limit them from loading up their board, thus blocking their ability to gain value from any buff mechanics they rely upon to win the game. Additionally, this minimizes or outright prevents carry-over. Beyond that, the goal is to force long rounds, especially R2. If I execute this approach and get reasonable draws, they lose the game. With very good draws they may even get 2-0'd. If I cannot do this well, I lose the game. For most matchups this holds true. The only variability is the rules change with the matchup, and there is a bit of RNG to card draws and the coinflip.

This.

At a decent MMR, the question is: "Have you understood your enemy's strategy and are you actively playing against it?".
If the answer is yes, given time you should be able to get an above average win rate.

Especially because out there is full of netdecking guys who think that just copying swim's deck and rinse and repeat the stream games' moves is enough to win.
The problem is they ain't swim, so the moment you get creative their MMR will be milked like if they were cows.

 

[Otterherder]

As a new player, I find this game fairly easy to understand, yet still complex enough to be interesting. I also play a little hearthstone, and that feels more simplistic to me. The true complexity, in both games, is mastering them. The mechanics in Gwent are pretty easy to learn, imo.

Although, saying the above, I would still like some clarification on some things...like lock. Locking clan tuirseach skirmishers doesn't stop their buffing in the graveyard, why?

 

[Redcoat2012]

I strongly disagree. Following significant changes this game can feel complex. Once the meta settles for a given MMR range it's the exact opposite. It becomes about matchups, with your own deck having, at most, a few conditions it either has to meet or deny an opponent deck to win the game vs the given matchup. Since it ends up being common for the herd to flock to the meta decks it tends to become a matter of seeing the matchups, understanding the meta and determining the conditions needed to beat the matchup in question.

To provide an example, let's use MS Swarm decks as a reference point, since it appears popular. Using my own deck, the rules are simple. They Fog, I clear it. They toss out Harpies/spawn units, I immediately remove them from the board. The entire goal is to limit them from loading up their board, thus blocking their ability to gain value from any buff mechanics they rely upon to win the game. Additionally, this minimizes or outright prevents carry-over. Beyond that, the goal is to force long rounds, especially R2. If I execute this approach and get reasonable draws, they lose the game. With very good draws they may even get 2-0'd. If I cannot do this well, I lose the game. For most matchups this holds true. The only variability is the rules change with the matchup, and there is a bit of RNG to card draws and the coinflip.

To continue the logic you started a patch cycle will inevitably hit a point were it stagnates due to very few cards being viable due to imbalances. I think the Muster monsters may be this patch cycles iteration of that deck. It successfully beats all the meta decks that came before it and to counter it comes at the price of being very weak against the decks it beats. You can make a deck that beats it sure but it won't win verses other popular decks so you won't climb far with it.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

To continue the logic you started a patch cycle will inevitably hit a point were it stagnates due to very few cards being viable due to imbalances. I think the Muster monsters may be this patch cycles iteration of that deck. It successfully beats all the meta decks that came before it and to counter it comes at the price of being very weak against the decks it beats. You can make a deck that beats it sure but it won't win verses other popular decks so you won't climb far with it.

Not necessarily true. Many of the tech cards you would logically use to stop deck A often work vs B, C, D and E as well. This is because deck A-E often rely on the same concepts. Win R1 or R2, play an uber buffed unit or three in R3. If you have the last play R3 you will likely win because there is no way to stop one of your uber buffed options, or you have more card plays from having CA.

I think the real issue is too many autopilot decks are viable. Case and point, Eithne Dwarves. Toss Dwarves at the board, spam buffs on them, minimize removals/resets vs them, win the game. You often need a very limited understanding of the game to reach a reasonable rank with this deck. You can even completely ignore the opponent actions, as well as concepts like CA, and still win. It's a good joke. MS Swarm is the same way, as are a number of other decks. If you execute the very simple concept of the deck, that concept isn't stopped or the faceroll autopilot deck your facing executes their own "strategy" less effectively, you win. If not, you lose. It's quite amusing to face one of these decks, shut it down, and watch the user continue plugging along trying to execute it with zero adjustment, and lose with it.