Again, I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to grasp the difference between factions having various "bad" or "OP" cards and NG having cards that make the game "easy to play."
Is Calveit "OP" or "broken" in the way that Reavers are broken? No, but no other faction can just skip mulligans and drawing cards, which are fundamental concepts of Gwent. No other factions can skip having to ADD [read: WASTE PROVISIONS on] consistency cards. Therefore, Calveit makes the game easier to play for NG. This is basic, rudimentary stuff. It's laughable, actually. There used to be NG Hyperthin, which you had to be like a complete ding dong not to arrive at the same 2 last cards left in the deck - kind of like the NR priestess stuff now - but then the devs figured that actually WASN'T easy enough, because it required a very specific build and having to do all this thinning and whatnot, and they said, what if they get a card that lets them skip all that? Lol. And it IS easier than that NR stuff, because NR uses the leader to draw, while NG uses a card, that's not exactly a tempo hit either.
Anyway, same goes for other things I listed. Those cards and mechanics aren't necessarily "more broken" than whatever else it is you love to complain about in any given season - certainly MILL, for example, thankfully isn't tier one (yet) - but they make the game easy to play, because you don't have to worry about pesky "conditions" or setting up combos, or knowing the opponent's decks(since you can just look, in the rare event that you care), etc etc. And NG has more of these plug and play cards, archetype and mechanics (that are both, easy AND good enough to be widely used) than any other faction.
I agree about calveit. Its a stupid card. It should Not exist. And it definetely shouldnt have 8 power.
But again: playing a saskia Commander in round one, solitaire some harmony cards, drypass round two and scenario round three isnt like doing some rocketsince. Same for the other examples i listed. Most of these Decks have various consistency tools and barely ever miss their key cards. So i still dont get why NG should be so much easier. Since many NG cards need targets - and Brick if they have none - it is much more Important to use your cards on the right opponent ones than it is when you play an uninteractive deck…so you cant just play what you want every turn and have to react on the opponents turns. Why is this easier??
I agree about calveit. Its a stupid card. It should Not exist. And it definetely shouldnt have 8 power.
But again: playing a saskia Commander in round one, solitaire some harmony cards, drypass round two and scenario round three isnt like doing some rocketsince. Same for the other examples i listed. Most of these Decks have various consistency tools and barely ever miss their key cards. So i still dont get why NG should be so much easier. Since many NG cards need targets - and Brick if they have none - it is much more Important to use your cards on the right opponent ones than it is when you play an uninteractive deck…so you cant just play what you want every turn and have to react on the opponents turns. Why is this easier??
No, it's not rocket science, but such as it is, Assimilate is still EASIER, because unlike Harmony, it has no unique tag restrictions. That is why it's easier.
People get consistency with tutors? OK, but they spend provisions on zero-point cards that are single-use. That's why Calveit is easier.
Oh, do they need targets or they will brick? OK, that's no specific to NG. So does every removal card, but somehow Vincent, Yenvo and Vilge are all easier to play and get value than Brehen or say Yaevinn. Oh, but provision? OK, Vanhemar. 6 provision, easier to get a target than Brehen.
And this can be observed across the board. Soft conditions or no conditions at all, archetypes (mill, clog) that require zero brain activity, etc etc. I mean, I believe the point's been made. I'm not going to retype everything I wrote above.
While i dont play anymore i still feel like answering this NG discussion.
Yes it can be really annoying to face some NG decks and cards like calveit and vilgefortz shouldnt exist. But are you guys serious when you say NG has all this unfair cards?
What about SK playing svalbold, repeating its ability for several times in one Turn creating a 100 points swing? Or playing some highland warriors, than literally kill everything you play and still having Sove - a Card with mostly more than 20 points and immunity. What about melusine played in three rounds? Or lets take ST with simlas playing for 5-10 waylays, or harmony scenario creating like 50 points in one turn. What about SY poison? Or bounty? NR reavers, priestesses, knights… Monsters that can create multiple copies of keltullis, dagon or whatever they want. Or their sir broken a lot that triggers thrive every turn - yours and opponents.
These are only some examples. Every single faction has a lot of These terribly broken and binary cards nowadays. Most of them are answer or lose. And facing them is not less annoying than broken NG stuff. Also most of them are not harder to Pilot than NG decks. And many of those binary decks are lost if one or two OP cards are answered.
NG is the faction that certainly has the most ways to answer them. So if you Play some broken answer or lose crap please stop crying about NG answering it.
> But are you guys serious when you say NG has all this unfair cards?
All factions have unbalanced cards. Cards for which the damage or benefit they give is greater than its provision cost. In the whole picture, I BELIEVE that NG is the faction where this happen the most. and I BELIEVE this view is shared by many people in this forum. Did I run a survey or did I counted negative agains favorable opinions to get a percentage of afinity to the faction? No, I didn't and I have no hard evidence to back my claims, Just what I felt after playing many matches and then joining this forum and realizing others had verbilized what I had felt about NG.
Many other things are broken (reavers, some neutral cards, sir scratch a lot, viy, harmony), but somehow we ended discussing NG, maybe because its obvious for some of us that they have unbalanced cards and balancing them, would make the game more enjoyable.
No, it's not rocket science, but such as it is, Assimilate is still EASIER, because unlike Harmony, it has no unique tag restrictions. That is why it's easier.
People get consistency with tutors? OK, but they spend provisions on zero-point cards that are single-use. That's why Calveit is easier.
Oh, do they need targets or they will brick? OK, that's no specific to NG. So does every removal card, but somehow Vincent, Yenvo and Vilge are all easier to play and get value than Brehen or say Yaevinn. Oh, but provision? OK, Vanhemar. 6 provision, easier to get a target than Brehen.
And this can be observed across the board. Soft conditions or no conditions at all, archetypes (mill, clog) that require zero brain activity, etc etc. I mean, I believe the point's been made. I'm not going to retype everything I wrote above.
Since when are Assimilate and Hyperthin considered easy? Dunno bout TLG, but I recall other teams consistently ranking Assimilate and Hyperthin as viable, but hard or very hard decks to play.
No, it's not rocket science, but such as it is, Assimilate is still EASIER, because unlike Harmony, it has no unique tag restrictions. That is why it's easier.
People get consistency with tutors? OK, but they spend provisions on zero-point cards that are single-use. That's why Calveit is easier.
Oh, do they need targets or they will brick? OK, that's no specific to NG. So does every removal card, but somehow Vincent, Yenvo and Vilge are all easier to play and get value than Brehen or say Yaevinn. Oh, but provision? OK, Vanhemar. 6 provision, easier to get a target than Brehen.
And this can be observed across the board. Soft conditions or no conditions at all, archetypes (mill, clog) that require zero brain activity, etc etc. I mean, I believe the point's been made. I'm not going to retype everything I wrote above.
My whole problem with this type of discussion is that terms like "easy" or "hard" have different contextual meanings and interpretations. For example, to me, by far, the hardest archetype to play is Northern Realms siege. Why? Because it depends upon gazillions of orders and selections. And with the clunky (disfunctional) mobile interface, time always expires before I can successfully select a order, find a target, execute the order, etc. But I'm pretty sure that's not what many would think of when I say hard. The second hardest is virtually any Syndicate deck. Getting a workable balance of earning and spending cards in a deck and achieving sufficient consistency so I also have a usable balance in hand is very difficult. In fact, in nearly three and a half years of playing, I have managed to create exactly 2 viable SY decks. And one of them was a no coin deck. A player who simply copies meta decks may not have the same experience.
More direct to this discussion, let me take Calveit. It is a card I never use because I find it too difficult. In truth, it has numerous potential drawbacks. It cannot help with round 1 draws (which is the point where vulnerability to poor draws is highest). It renders your round 2 vulnerable to value bleeds. It potentially locks important bronze cards out of reach. Yes, these are subtle drawbacks. They're unlikely to generate immediate catastrophe. They require an aware opponent who actively works to exploit them. But in this regard, I argue that cards like Calveit increase the intellectual challenge of Gwent. To me, Calveit is NOT the "easy" NG cheat you make it out to be.
So what exactly does easy mean? Easy to win with? Easy to deckbuild with? Easy to achieve tactical effects with? Easy to obtain strategic effects with? Easy to play well? Devoid of complications? All of these are different questions, with different answers for most cards and players.
Since when are Assimilate and Hyperthin considered easy? Dunno bout TLG, but I recall other teams consistently ranking Assimilate and Hyperthin as viable, but hard or very hard decks to play.
I mean, you can literally go to Team Elder Blood meta report right now, which is the only one that's still being made, and there are 3 different NG decks in there: TD (aka new hyperthin), Enslave 6 (which is basically current Assimilate) and Cultists and ALL OF THEM are rated EASY.
My whole problem with this type of discussion is that terms like "easy" or "hard" have different contextual meanings and interpretations. For example, to me, by far, the hardest archetype to play is Northern Realms siege. Why? Because it depends upon gazillions of orders and selections. And with the clunky (disfunctional) mobile interface, time always expires before I can successfully select a order, find a target, execute the order, etc. But I'm pretty sure that's not what many would think of when I say hard. The second hardest is virtually any Syndicate deck. Getting a workable balance of earning and spending cards in a deck and achieving sufficient consistency so I also have a usable balance in hand is very difficult. In fact, in nearly three and a half years of playing, I have managed to create exactly 2 viable SY decks. And one of them was a no coin deck. A player who simply copies meta decks may not have the same experience.
More direct to this discussion, let me take Calveit. It is a card I never use because I find it too difficult. In truth, it has numerous potential drawbacks. It cannot help with round 1 draws (which is the point where vulnerability to poor draws is highest). It renders your round 2 vulnerable to value bleeds. It potentially locks important bronze cards out of reach. Yes, these are subtle drawbacks. They're unlikely to generate immediate catastrophe. They require an aware opponent who actively works to exploit them. But in this regard, I argue that cards like Calveit increase the intellectual challenge of Gwent. To me, Calveit is NOT the "easy" NG cheat you make it out to be.
So what exactly does easy mean? Easy to win with? Easy to deckbuild with? Easy to achieve tactical effects with? Easy to obtain strategic effects with? Easy to play well? Devoid of complications? All of these are different questions, with different answers for most cards and players.
There's no need to overcomplicate things. Easy means it's easy to pilot. If you take a netdeck of the archetype from the website or library, a deck which you did not build yourself, and use it to climb, you don't need a lot of skill or calculation to use it well. It basically plays itself.
And needless to say I strongly disagree with that Calveit take. Starting with the idea R1 being the most vulnerable to poor draws. It's beyond count how many time I drew cards in R3 that I'd much rather draw in R1, while leaving win cons in the deck. And this idea that Calveit is literally in every NG deck (except yours) while it "increases the intellectual challenge," which I guess is also supposed to subtly be relevant to NG as a whole. You're basically saying here that NG players are using Calveit in these overwhelming numbers (and NG as a whole) BECAUSE they LOVE themselves an "intellectual challenge," and not at ALL because he makes their life easier. Yeah, I'm gonna say that's not likely...
I mean, you can literally go to Team Elder Blood meta report right now, which is the only one that's still being made, and there are 3 different NG decks in there: TD (aka new hyperthin), Enslave 6 (which is basically current Assimilate) and Cultists and ALL OF THEM are rated EASY.
Post automatically merged:
There's no need to overcomplicate things. Easy means it's easy to pilot. If you take a netdeck of the archetype from the website or library, a deck which you did not build yourself, and use it to climb, you don't need a lot of skill or calculation to use it well. It basically plays itself.
And needless to say I strongly disagree with that Calveit take. Starting with the idea R1 being the most vulnerable to poor draws. It's beyond count how many time I drew cards in R3 that I'd much rather draw in R1, while leaving win cons in the deck. And this idea that Calveit is literally in every NG deck (except yours) while it "increases the intellectual challenge," which I guess is also supposed to subtly be relevant to NG as a whole. You're basically saying here that NG players are using Calveit in these overwhelming numbers (and NG as a whole) BECAUSE they LOVE themselves an "intellectual challenge," and not at ALL because he makes their life easier. Yeah, I'm gonna say that's not likely...
Enslave is definitely not a typical Assimilate deck. Only two cards have that tag, and I think Torres (who you never want to play in his second form because he kinda got killed off). Nah, I was talking about the classical Assimilate with Terranova, Braathens, Vigo, Mage Torturers, Bribery, Double Cross..... By the way, have you actually played NG in the past? Kinda curious, because "always easy to play" is a pretty absolute statement that shouldn't be made without experiencing both sides.
Enslave is definitely not a typical Assimilate deck. Only two cards have that tag, and I think Torres (who you never want to play in his second form because he kinda got killed off). Nah, I was talking about the classical Assimilate with Terranova, Braathens, Vigo, Mage Torturers, Bribery, Double Cross..... By the way, have you actually played NG in the past? Kinda curious, because "always easy to play" is a pretty absolute statement that shouldn't be made without experiencing both sides.
The most common "current" build that I've run into with Enslave includes Terranova, Vigo, Torturers, Bribery, Diplomacy, Torres and sometimes even Glynnis, so yes, Enslave IS the current version of Assimilate. And if you wanted to talk about the Double Cross Assimilate "of old", I don't see what would be difficult in playing it as compared to the current one. The principle of super easy engine proccing is the same. They didn't use to have Calveit and Skellen in his current insane assimilate form, sure, but that just goes to show that things are getting EVEN easier for NG. Most recently, the change from faction-specific cards to "non-neutral" ALSO made things easier for exactly NO other factions but NG.
And no, I don't play NG, in the past or otherwise, nor do I think I need to in order to see how this Non-Neutral change made things easier for NG, nor how Assimilate is easier than Harmony, nor how Vincent easier than Brehen. That stuff is basic, self-evident.
Not sure where you read me saying "always easy to play." I said "in general," and maybe "overall" NG is easier to play than other factions, because they have more cards that make the game easier for them and more archetypes that are easy to play than any other faction.
The most common "current" build that I've run into with Enslave includes Terranova, Vigo, Torturers, Bribery, Diplomacy, Torres and sometimes even Glynnis, so yes, Enslave IS the current version of Assimilate. And if you wanted to talk about the Double Cross Assimilate "of old", I don't see what would be difficult in playing it as compared to the current one. The principle of super easy engine proccing is the same. They didn't use to have Calveit and Skellen in his current insane assimilate form, sure, but that just goes to show that things are getting EVEN easier for NG. Most recently, the change from faction-specific cards to "non-neutral" ALSO made things easier for exactly NO other factions but NG.
And no, I don't play NG, in the past or otherwise, nor do I think I need to in order to see how this Non-Neutral change made things easier for NG, nor how Assimilate is easier than Harmony, nor how Vincent easier than Brehen. That stuff is basic, self-evident.
Not sure where you read me saying "always easy to play." I said "in general," and maybe "overall" NG is easier to play than other factions, because they have more cards that make the game easier for them and more archetypes that are easy to play than any other faction.
You literally wrote in a comment to some other guy before "listen, it's been a known thing for as long as Gwent existed that NG is easy to play". This conversation is ridiculously pointless lol
You literally wrote in a comment to some other guy before "listen, it's been a known thing for as long as Gwent existed that NG is easy to play". This conversation is ridiculously pointless lol
Now that you actually quoted something I wrote, where did I say "always easy to play?" Because saying "it's been always known that NG is easy to play" is not the same as saying "NG is always easy to play." It's not an "absolute statement." I bet there are people out there, like @quintivarium who are building and playing some intricate, complicated NG decks [without Calveit] and having to expend some effort while piloting them. It's like saying SY is the hardest faction to play, which seems to be another one of those common Gwent knowledge things, ever since SY was introduced. But that doesn't equal saying SY is "always hard to play", either.
And on top of that, for about the hundredth time now in this same thread, "easy to play" doesn't always mean "OP".
But "on the whole," "in general," "overall," NG is easier to play and climb the ranks with than other factions, which is why you see it five out of every freaking ten games on the ladder.
I bet there are people out there, like @quintivarium who are building and playing some intricate, complicated NG decks [without Calveit] and having to expend some effort while piloting them.
Regrettably, I have no adequate, “challenging to play”, creative NG (or any other faction for that matter) decks to offer. It is the sad state of Gwent that virtually all meta decks vomit points. Unless you do the same, quality of play won’t matter. But to do the same, you either play the same hackneyed cards found in the meta (no creativity) or you play the binary crap that dominates the meme scene (and play doesn’t matter — only draws and/or matchup).
The only thing remotely interesting to play that I have to offer is an SY deck revolving around the new “spendthrift” archetype cards — an archetype that I think is badly underestimated at the moment. My SY deck is described here if anyone is interested.
Post automatically merged:
I also wanted to comment briefly on the ease of playing certain cards.
When it comes to comparing boost archetypes (thrive, harmony, assimilate) none are exactly challenging. Thrive and harmony may have slightly harder conditions to meet, but they are totally uninteractive -- the same card order works every time (with harmony, the order only matters if there are duplicate tags). The hard part is in the deck design process where one has to optimize possible triggers while still achieving consistency across likely draws. Assimilate is easier to trigger, but requires interacting with the opponent's cards -- thought that is different, but not, in my opinion, lesser.
Comparing (non-neutral) conditional removal cards (Vanhemar, Champion's Charge, Brehen, Graden, Moreelse, Junod, Vincent van Moorlehem, Leo Bonhart, Imlerith's Wrath) for difficulty is equally meaningless. With the exceptions of Charge, and Brehen, meeting the condition is trivial (although Junod might be more restricted on choice of target). The intellectual challenge is deciding when (and whether) meeting the condition is worthwhile -- and that is the case with all virtually unlimited removal.
Champion's Charge and Brehen are actually interesting cards -- cards like Villentretenmerth that actually depend upon a board state that can be altered by both players Only here does a true matching of wit occur. But it is again an unfortunate state of Gwent that removal has become so prevalent (and necessary) that almost all cards play for immediate or distributed effect. Successfully removing a card after battling over setting up that removal is rarely game changing.
My observation is that none of this is really the fault of Nilfgaard.
Now that you actually quoted something I wrote, where did I say "always easy to play?" Because saying "it's been always known that NG is easy to play" is not the same as saying "NG is always easy to play." It's not an "absolute statement." I bet there are people out there, like @quintivarium who are building and playing some intricate, complicated NG decks [without Calveit] and having to expend some effort while piloting them. It's like saying SY is the hardest faction to play, which seems to be another one of those common Gwent knowledge things, ever since SY was introduced. But that doesn't equal saying SY is "always hard to play", either.
And on top of that, for about the hundredth time now in this same thread, "easy to play" doesn't always mean "OP".
But "on the whole," "in general," "overall," NG is easier to play and climb the ranks with than other factions, which is why you see it five out of every freaking ten games on the ladder.
Okay, I've looked through more meta reports of the past now and still couldn't find any evidence NG is generally easier to play than other factions. You keep saying it's never been a secret that NG is generally the faction with the biggest amount of easy decks to pilot while still being viable. Not only talking about the last months, but in general. Which pro players say that? There must be quite a number of them if it's that self-evident and obvious. And I've apparently missed out on all of them while checking right now.
...
I also wanted to comment briefly on the ease of playing certain cards.
When it comes to comparing boost archetypes (thrive, harmony, assimilate) none are exactly challenging. Thrive and harmony may have slightly harder conditions to meet, but they are totally uninteractive -- the same card order works every time (with harmony, the order only matters if there are duplicate tags). The hard part is in the deck design process where one has to optimize possible triggers while still achieving consistency across likely draws. Assimilate is easier to trigger, but requires interacting with the opponent's cards -- thought that is different, but not, in my opinion, lesser.
Interactivity in itself has no bearing on ease of play, because 1) your opponent will always play cards and 2) Assimilate doesn't ACTUALLY REQUIRE interaction, because it has cards like diplomacy, bribery, Torress, sargeant, Vigo, Braathens, Skellen, and so on and so forth, all of which will trigger Assimilate without any sort of interaction with the opponent. So I would argue that the condition is the chief deciding factor here, and though the difference, like you said, might not be huge, it is certainly measurable.
Comparing (non-neutral) conditional removal cards (Vanhemar, Champion's Charge, Brehen, Graden, Moreelse, Junod, Vincent van Moorlehem, Leo Bonhart, Imlerith's Wrath) for difficulty is equally meaningless. With the exceptions of Charge, and Brehen, meeting the condition is trivial (although Junod might be more restricted on choice of target). The intellectual challenge is deciding when (and whether) meeting the condition is worthwhile -- and that is the case with all virtually unlimited removal.
I don't find this meaningless at all. I think it illustrates the point pretty well. Out of the 11 targeted non-neutral removal options (you forgot Vilge and Yenvo in your list) 6 belong to NG, 2 to SY, 2 to SK, 1 to MO and 1 to ST. None of the NG conditions are difficult, 1 of SK is, and Junod, like you said, has a cap of no boost, ST is hard, SY seem easy, but coin management is somewhat tricky, as you know, so I would say they are still slightly more complicated than NG. MO I would say is comparably easy.
Now this, I think, is pretty meaningless. Not really even sure that it's supposed to mean. The argument is how easy it is to play. Ethics and intent has been discussed at lengths in other, earlier threads I think, and there's no reason to rehash those topics here in the patch notes. The thread's been hijacked enough I think.
Regrettably, I have no adequate, “challenging to play”, creative NG (or any other faction for that matter) decks to offer. It is the sad state of Gwent that virtually all meta decks vomit points. Unless you do the same, quality of play won’t matter. But to do the same, you either play the same hackneyed cards found in the meta (no creativity) or you play the binary crap that dominates the meme scene (and play doesn’t matter — only draws and/or matchup).
The only thing remotely interesting to play that I have to offer is an SY deck revolving around the new “spendthrift” archetype cards — an archetype that I think is badly underestimated at the moment. My SY deck is described here if anyone is interested.
Post automatically merged:
I also wanted to comment briefly on the ease of playing certain cards.
When it comes to comparing boost archetypes (thrive, harmony, assimilate) none are exactly challenging. Thrive and harmony may have slightly harder conditions to meet, but they are totally uninteractive -- the same card order works every time (with harmony, the order only matters if there are duplicate tags). The hard part is in the deck design process where one has to optimize possible triggers while still achieving consistency across likely draws. Assimilate is easier to trigger, but requires interacting with the opponent's cards -- thought that is different, but not, in my opinion, lesser.
Comparing (non-neutral) conditional removal cards (Vanhemar, Champion's Charge, Brehen, Graden, Moreelse, Junod, Vincent van Moorlehem, Leo Bonhart, Imlerith's Wrath) for difficulty is equally meaningless. With the exceptions of Charge, and Brehen, meeting the condition is trivial (although Junod might be more restricted on choice of target). The intellectual challenge is deciding when (and whether) meeting the condition is worthwhile -- and that is the case with all virtually unlimited removal.
Champion's Charge and Brehen are actually interesting cards -- cards like Villentretenmerth that actually depend upon a board state that can be altered by both players Only here does a true matching of wit occur. But it is again an unfortunate state of Gwent that removal has become so prevalent (and necessary) that almost all cards play for immediate or distributed effect. Successfully removing a card after battling over setting up that removal is rarely game changing.
My observation is that none of this is really the fault of Nilfgaard.
I think we should sum this up by saying everyone has a different personal opinion on "faction difficulty". While I'm in team "it completely depends on the deck and not at all on the faction itself", some others see a certain trend by the developers of making [insert faction] generally the easiest to play. I still don't get the second view the slightest because I used to play almost all factions (except SK I think) to some extent in the past and never got the feeling the devs want to specifically reserve "ease and convenience" for one or another, but so be it.
