Please change full row effects - Reduce variance in general

[Archan6el]

Dragons Dream, Lacerate and Crushing traps are not overpowered.

You almost lost me here already. You simply cannot make statements of fact like that. It is more complicated due to the huge variance of these type of (cheap) cards. This huge variance makes them OP in certain situations, meaning that their value : provision ratio is completely of.

Indeed, there is something not quite right with rows and row effects. And in my opinion, that was caused by removing the third row, introducing row-limited abilities and at the same time allowing huge variance in row-damaging cards. That's why the Brouver movement deck is another example of the game mechanics aggravating rock-paper-scissors unbalanced, unfun games (decks auto-losing against specific other decks).

On top of that, as you also touched upon, often these row-limited abilities make no sense. To me they just seem to be introduced to create the illusion of "meaningful" rows. If (gold) cards have only one ability and it is row-locked (and sometimes even on order on top of that), it is simply not meaningful and it is way too easy for a cheap bronze to counter it. Rows become meaningful when cards have different abilities for different rows, allowing for strategic choices.

All of this badly balanced stuff in the game can be solved by implementing a limited range of the value : provision ratio of most cards. It is really that simple! That is why provision points were introduced! With a limited range of value : provision ratio, getting the most value out of your cards (a few points more) will be about playing the best strategic game (yes, strategy!). It's so silly and frustrating to see that the smart concept of provision points is so poorly utilized for balancing.

 

[mzeebra]

You almost lost me here already. You simply cannot make statements of fact like that. It is more complicated due to the huge variance of these type of (cheap) cards. This huge variance makes them OP in certain situations, meaning that their value : provision ratio is completely of.

I disagree that you can think about it in this way. Variable cards have to be thought of in the context of a deck, random draws and many games, say 50 games. You have to look at the average use for these, not 1 time optimal use.

If you want to add row related cards, say gold cards (aard, nivellen etc) you also have to take those into account. Lacerate in that case does not provide its own value alone, so you can say 7 provision. It needs support to make the real "big moves", and you have to account those provisions as well.

In any case, I think I clearly added that I think there is something not optimal about how rows and row effects etc works at the moment. I don't say that the provisions are necessarily correct, they could perhaps be slightly off or need some small adjustment, but nothing dramatic like you claim. You can't just take the optimal situation to justify the card, you have to take many cards and adjust for average. Most decks don't play row support cards, so most likely you will get about average value from these cards, unless a deck stack their units on the same row. In some cases they can be inconvenient or awkward to have in your deck and/or hand even.

Ps. I like variance in Gwent, but sure, it needs to be somewhat balanced. I think without variance, the game would become very static and boring.

Post automatically merged: Jun 9, 2019

so generally therefore the card is more than fine, maybe even too weak for its high provision costs. i also never see it in the top ranks being played.

I almost never see Dragons Dream played either, below the pro ranks. This seems to indicate there is nothing wrong with the card currently (ex. provisions).

And all your points were valid.

Post automatically merged: Jun 9, 2019

from that point of view, you are right. it would mean less luck, more strategic .... but maybe it would be also a little more boring.

If I was to build my deck around Dragons Dream, I can imagine I would often get poor value (relative to the work put into that), and my deck would become very specialized. I would need to bring some cards that I normally do not bring. I also doubt I would like this deck or get generally great value.

Post automatically merged: Jun 9, 2019

The point swings are part of the strategy. There is a difference between RNG (create has no place in Gwent,) and point swing. Lacerate is a perfect example.

I bring lacerare in say about 1/3 of my (few) decks. For me it is purely an opportunistic card. Sometimes it gives good value, sometimes poor, sometimes average. Sometimes it can even brick my hand or round if I draw it at the wrong time.

 

[Archan6el]

I disagree that you can think about it in this way. Variable cards have to be thought of in the context of a deck, random draws and many games, say 50 games. You have to look at the average use for these, not 1 time optimal use.

That's not how Gwent works. A game in Gwent is not like a round in poker. One game in Gwent is the whole game, with max 3 rounds. When you lose, you lose the whole game. In poker you may lose some money in one round, but you may still continue playing many rounds to win the overall game.

The value of most (cheap) cards should have a range that does not go too much above the provision cost. That is not "without variance" as you put it. This will reduce the rock-paper-scissors effect and promote smart strategic play to get just that one point ahead.

You don't need support for Lacerate if the opponent's deck is prone to row-stack or have many units on the board in general. Again rock-paper-scissors stuff, with high variance cards becoming OP.

 

[mzeebra]

The value of most (cheap) cards should have a range that does not go too much above the provision cost. That is not "without variance" as you put it. This will reduce the rock-paper-scissors effect and promote smart strategic play to get just that one point ahead.

You don't need support for Lacerate if the opponent's deck is prone to row-stack or have many units on the board in general. Again rock-paper-scissors stuff, with high variance cards becoming OP.

Well, you are wrong. The reason I bring lacerate is strategic, not because it is such a powerful card. In a few cases it can be extremely useful, mainly against Arachas Queen. If it wasn't for that deck, I would bring Lacerate even less often than I do.

Generally people don't stack all their units on the same row, so typically you will get 6 or 8 value from lacerate, there being 3 or 4 units on a row. Provided all of them are 2 or more power. In many cases unless you plan it, some will be 1 power. Lacerate also prevents you from destroying units on a row with other cards, so if you run a damage heavy deck, well.. Sure, there are cases where you can score 10 points with lacerate, but there are also cases where you can score 4. I've scored 4 with it several times, even 3 a few times.

It's down to draws and timing and such things. In short round 3's it can be a nightmare to draw lacerate. I don't think there is a rock-paper-scissors element to it. It has to do with circumstances, and as I said, for me Lacerate is purely an opportunistic card. Just a decent card, nothing more, nothing less. Having it in the deck comes with both advantages and risks.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the variance of lacerate, like I said I think rows and row effects and such things are not optimal as it is. I don't know exactly what the problem is, or what the solution is, but lacerate is not the problem, nor is dragons dream.

PS. I think they already tweaked (fixed) Nivellen

 

[Archan6el]

Well, you are wrong.

Unexplained. And then nicely followed by:

I don't know exactly what the problem is, or what the solution is

I believe I do and have explained it. Nuff read and said.

 

[mzeebra]

Unexplained. And then nicely followed by:
I believe I do and have explained it. Nuff read and said.

I did explain it in length, both in the post you replied to and other posts. Taking something out of context doesn't mean you "win". Besides, there is no prize.