POLL: Removal and lock need rebalance?

[1990BW]

As for now removal is better than locking cards.
With removal engine value gets instantly denied while a locked card can be purified.
Most lock cards have a body while most removal don't.
Still lock is worse and won't see much play.
The main problem is centered around the provision costs.
Locks are expensive in most factions while removal is cheaper.
There are some really good 4p removal options:

- stunning blow
- gutting slash
- tourney joust
- natural selection
- bloody good fun

For 5p you have:

- assassination
- rebuke
- alzurs thunder
- boiling oil

The cheap lock options are:

- van moorlehem hunter
- alba infantry
- dimeritium shackles

Only hunters are kind of OK but the rest of them are bad.
Let's not even talk about the 7p+ gold cards which are utter trash.
What I'd like to see changed is +1 provision for all removal special cards and -1 provision for lock cards and in some cases slightly bigger body.
Removal is still good but at a cost while lock cards are a better trade-off provision wise.

 

[Selestes]

That's my biggest complain about Gwent - removal. The problem was there even before h.coming disaster.
At some point in h.c. it became so huge problem, unitless decks, etc, so they had to tweak many cards that deals damage, some of them became unplayable forever.
But then - they introduced new cheap bronze specials to almost all factions. Now everything played gets destroyed again.
So, I agree: every special damage bronzes and golds should be +1, or even +2 provisions.

As for locks, I'd say that they should stay as they are now.

 

[Guest 4375874]

That's my biggest complain about Gwent - removal. The problem was there even before h.coming disaster.
At some point in h.c. it became so huge problem, unitless decks, etc, so they had to tweak many cards that deals damage, some of them became unplayable forever.
But then - they introduced new cheap bronze specials to almost all factions. Now everything played gets destroyed again.
So, I agree: every special damage bronzes and golds should be +1, or even +2 provisions.

As for locks, I'd say that they should stay as they are now.

If locks remain then at the least you need better purify options. At the moment NG can spam lock most decks, in addition to poison. All of which are cheap bronze units. Meanwhile other have what...Caretaker? I disagree with -1 for locks unless more lock units are added to other factions, it should be +1 otherwise.

 

[CaioSamp]

I see people complaining about locking cards being too expensive but I keep getting my cards all damn locked up whenever I play against NG. So... I think it's balanced enough.

 

[Guest 4375874]

I see people complaining about locking cards being too expensive but I keep getting my cards all damn locked up whenever I play against NG. So... I think it's balanced enough.

You must not have read the other comments. The problem is the expensive locks are in other factions, not NG. NG lock/poison units tend to be very cheap. It's not balanced

 

[Jamborinio]

All I know is that Stunning Blow is the bane of my Dwarf deck.

 

[quintivarium]

I find lock and removal to be well balanced. Removal is more reliable, but most cheap removal cards are either specials (which score no points for you) or insufficient to destroy most engines. Locks may be a bit more costly but come with a 4 or 5 point body. I usually prefer cards that benefit me while interfering with my opponent.

 

[Guest 4368268]

4p special cards that (conditionally) do up to 6/7 damage are ridiculous. Armor was introduced as a mechanic to protect engines and now Skellige for instance has an auto-include cheap card that completely defies it and even punishes it.
For the health of the game the best removal should be able to do is break even. You shouldn't be trading up when you play removal all the time.

I support the idea of the most damage dealing cards being specials. But they should be priced accordingly. Putting them in the 4p slot just entices people to throw a handful of them in their deck (because why not?) and it's gotten very frustrating.
Right now you can't really add a few engines/orders in your deck because you're just throwing value at your opponent. So either you run dry value decks or you have to hope to overwhelm your opponent with engines and orders. Whereas the middle ground should be encouraged the most.

There's a reason in OB Gwent Alzurs Thunder did 9 damage and not 'but deal 10 if you've got a pig on the board' or some such nonsense. Locks can as far as I'm concerned get a slight provision buff. Lock is something you can actually play around. I really hope the game moves away from the lazy card design. I'm playing games where Syndicate/NG/Skellige are playing about 10 deal-X amount of damage specials. Boring.

 

[ShadowKayn]

Well.. all thou i agree with you that removal is not balanced. however i must say that it needs a very slight nerf. even adding 1 provision is too much off a nerf ( except for stunning blow because its busted). if you nerf removal too much then engines will be even more [problematic] that the removals atm. maybe the best way to balance it is to add more defenders. bronze defenders for each faction will be the best option since it will deal with removals but punish engines by slowing them down a bit while playing the defenders and punish them if they dont play them

 

[Bleach25]

Well.. all thou i agree with you that removal is not balanced. however i must say that it needs a very slight nerf. even adding 1 provision is too much off a nerf ( except for stunning blow because its busted). if you nerf removal too much then engines will be even more [problematic] that the removals atm. maybe the best way to balance it is to add more defenders. bronze defenders for each faction will be the best option since it will deal with removals but punish engines by slowing them down a bit while playing the defenders and punish them if they dont play them

Gold defenders already imbalance this game, Imagine bronze defenders.
Removal is reactive, the source of the problem are engines:

- some of them can Just snowball out of control
- some decks can Just swarm the board with them

Now of course engine decks that can't do either of these things are going to suffer, because they get obliterated.

My solution: rebalance engines, then removal.

Regarding locks I propose to introduce a new stunned status. It would work like locks, but only for a specified amount of turns (like bleeding) and it can be purified. Stunned could be used to create new cards and maybe rebalance cheap locks such as Van Moorlehem Hunter.
At the same time lock should become a more prized mechanic, going back to its beta version: only lock cards can unlock another card

 

[GrénnesMann]

Armor was introduced as a mechanic to protect engines and now Skellige for instance has an auto-include cheap card that completely defies it and even punishes it.

Surely every faction has auto-include control cards of one form or another?

Armour also gives no protection against bleed, poison, seize, destroy, duel, etc. - or anything except normal damage. Same goes for Shield (except it will absorb one point of bleed damage).

 

[1990BW]

I noticed a lot of voters have voted for option 'other' but I see no comments explaining their choice.
If you vote other but don't explain why you chose this option it doesn't tell nothing.

What I like to add is that removal for 4p completely contradicts an earlier statement of the dev team.
A few patches ago they nerfed a lot of damage and removal cards because they were way to dominant.
The decision to bring back a lot of cheap removal has brought Gwent back to the same point where it was.
This is bad for credibility first you fix the problem and then bring it back again.

These non-interactive plays are a disaster if you have blue coin it's NO FUN at all, it's abuse.
The Gwent board should represent a battlefield where armies fight each other.
But the usual line of play these days in the first 1-3 turns you fight against nothing.

It has no use to play engines unless you are able to spawn several of them in a single turn or resurrect them.
Anything else will get removed, locked or poisoned by ST, SY, SK and NG pointspam decks.
This type of gameplay has nothing to do with skill and is just autopiloting every game.
Playing against such type of decks has become so predictable it annoys me.

As for now I have lost faith in Gwent I really want this to be a good game.
Balancing the game has always been a nightmare since beta.
It makes me sad the devs make a lot of promises but don't deliver or make things even worse.
Instead of bringing new content they should focus more on completing archetypes, nerf and buff cards and delete broken combo's.

They make the same mistakes when the game was in beta.

 

[Guest 4375874]

I noticed a lot of voters have voted for option 'other' but I see no comments explaining their choice.
If you vote other but don't explain why you chose this option it doesn't tell nothing.

What I like to add is that removal for 4p completely contradicts an earlier statement of the dev team.
A few patches ago they nerfed a lot of damage and removal cards because they were way to dominant.
The decision to bring back a lot of cheap removal has brought Gwent back to the same point where it was.
This is bad for credibility first you fix the problem and then bring it back again.

These non-interactive plays are a disaster if you have blue coin it's NO FUN at all, it's abuse.
The Gwent board should represent a battlefield where armies fight each other.
But the usual line of play these days in the first 1-3 turns you fight against nothing.

It has no use to play engines unless you are able to spawn several of them in a single turn or resurrect them.
Anything else will get removed, locked or poisoned by ST, SY, SK and NG pointspam decks.
This type of gameplay has nothing to do with skill and is just autopiloting every game.
Playing against such type of decks has become so predictable it annoys me.

As for now I have lost faith in Gwent I really want this to be a good game.
Balancing the game has always been a nightmare since beta.
It makes me sad the devs make a lot of promises but don't deliver or make things even worse.
Instead of bringing new content they should focus more on completing archetypes, nerf and buff cards and delete broken combo's.

They make the same mistakes when the game was in beta.

I reckon "other" is where both need to be nerfed. For whatever reason that option isn't included.

 

[quintivarium]

I generally will not select a card unless I expect to be able to set it up to play for at least 6 points — anything less would be simply mulligan fodder. When cards are selected only to allow more provisions for super high powered cards and hopefully never to be played, you increase undesirable types of randomness, decrease number of competitive decks, and increase the risk of overpowered cards.

I looked at Slellige’s 4 provision special cards. Stunning blow does only 4 points, unless a unit has a shield, in which case it is worth 7. I have no control over whether my opponent will play a shield, so unless I need a tech card, stunning blow is out. Gutting Slash does 4 points, unless bloodthirsty 2 is met, in which case, it does 6. If I am successfully removing units, bloodthirsty 2 will not be met. At best, this card meets my minimal expectation, and to accomplish that, I sacrifice timing and hand design options. Trophy catch has a potentially useful side effect of moving a unit, but unless my opponent has played a large number of cards on one row, it is unlikely to play for much damage — it, too, is at best a tech card.

Perhaps I play the game wrong, but from my perspective, 4 provision removal cards (at least with Skellige) are not an issue — I generally won’t even choose them. The problem with balance in Gwent, in my opinion, is almost always with the premium, legendary cards or overpowered gold card interactions — not with the already marginal low provision cards.

 

[1990BW]

I reckon "other" is where both need to be nerfed. For whatever reason that option isn't included.

Thanks for the suggestion I've added this option.
Votes can be changed.

 

[Guest 4375874]

I generally will not select a card unless I expect to be able to set it up to play for at least 6 points — anything less would be simply mulligan fodder. When cards are selected only to allow more provisions for super high powered cards and hopefully never to be played, you increase undesirable types of randomness, decrease number of competitive decks, and increase the risk of overpowered cards.

I looked at Slellige’s 4 provision special cards. Stunning blow does only 4 points, unless a unit has a shield, in which case it is worth 7. I have no control over whether my opponent will play a shield, so unless I need a tech card, stunning blow is out. Gutting Slash does 4 points, unless bloodthirsty 2 is met, in which case, it does 6. If I am successfully removing units, bloodthirsty 2 will not be met. At best, this card meets my minimal expectation, and to accomplish that, I sacrifice timing and hand design options. Trophy catch has a potentially useful side effect of moving a unit, but unless my opponent has played a large number of cards on one row, it is unlikely to play for much damage — it, too, is at best a tech card.

Perhaps I play the game wrong, but from my perspective, 4 provision removal cards (at least with Skellige) are not an issue — I generally won’t even choose them. The problem with balance in Gwent, in my opinion, is almost always with the premium, legendary cards or overpowered gold card interactions — not with the already marginal low provision cards.

Well that's specific to SK. NG definitely isn't purely a premium card issue...the entire faction is unbalanced, bronze units alike. For SK the card I see being exploited the most right now is Lippy switching their graveyard with their deck in the 2nd or 3rd round at which point you being their opponent will likely have very few cards remaining but they can not only replenish their deck but gain several points from cards that are automatically moved to the field. I;m baffled how Devs would not see this as being problematic in terms of balancing given how ridiculously cheap the card is

 

[Guest 4368268]

Well that's specific to SK. NG definitely isn't purely a premium card issue...the entire faction is unbalanced, bronze units alike. For SK the card I see being exploited the most right now is Lippy switching their graveyard with their deck in the 2nd or 3rd round at which point you being their opponent will likely have very few cards remaining but they can not only replenish their deck but gain several points from cards that are automatically moved to the field. I;m baffled how Devs would not see this as being problematic in terms of balancing given how ridiculously cheap the card is

Lippy decks with all luck is in its favour might seem smooth and consistent but after having played dozens of games with it I can tell you it's not. It's very coinflip dependent, draws are a nightmare and a well timed tech card or two shuts the Lippy decks down early. Lippy isn't cheap at 10p as the card he usually brings out (Knickers, Morkvarg, Roach) cost 9, 8 and 10 respectively. The deck mostly punishes players that don't know when to pass or push against it.

 

[Guest 4375874]

Lippy decks with all luck is in its favour might seem smooth and consistent but after having played dozens of games with it I can tell you it's not. It's very coinflip dependent, draws are a nightmare and a well timed tech card or two shuts the Lippy decks down early. Lippy isn't cheap at 10p as the card he usually brings out (Knickers, Morkvarg, Roach) cost 9, 8 and 10 respectively. The deck mostly punishes players that don't know when to pass or push against it.

How do you shut it down exactly? It's a deploy ability. And Knickers, Roach and Morkvarg...you say that as though it's not adding 11pts in the 2nd or 3rd round without any cost whatsoever and no way to react to it. Unless you're playing NG and can banish cards from their graveyard consistently I don't see a way to counter that. There's nothing coinflippy about it....returning your graveyard to your deck is a plus no matter how you look at it because your best cards will most likely be played in the 1st round whether you win or lose.

As for provision...Renewal costs more and only returns 1 card with 9 provision. Lippy is replenishing your entire deck for a mull again. it's as bad as NG double ball which returns one card to your deck.

 

[Guest 4368268]

How do you shut it down exactly? It's a deploy ability. And Knickers, Roach and Morkvarg...you say that as though it's not adding 11pts in the 2nd or 3rd round without any cost whatsoever and no way to react to it. Unless you're playing NG and can banish cards from their graveyard consistently I don't see a way to counter that. There's nothing coinflippy about it....returning your graveyard to your deck is a plus no matter how you look at it because your best cards will most likely be played in the 1st round whether you win or lose.

As for provision...Renewal costs more and only returns 1 card with 9 provision. Lippy is replenishing your entire deck for a mull again. it's as bad as NG double ball which returns one card to your deck.

Muzzle, Korathi Heatwave and Regis Bloodlust are some neutral cards that are generally good but particularly excellent against Lippy. Lippy + Morkvarg + Roach + Knickers is 15 points for 37 provisions. That itself isn't unreasonable at all, especially when we start comparing it with other combos in the game. Lippy decks get their points in strong surges, be it the artifact version or the Cerys/Vildkaarl version.

Now pretty much all meta decks already run counters for this. Lacerate for Cerys and heatwave for the artifact/vildkaarl. This is not even to mention the Nilfgaard matchup (which is super prominent) running Sweers/Yennefer. I have to disagree with you that Lippy decks (any of them) are on par with double ball in terms of quality. Not even close, the playrates will probably speak for themselves here.

 

[Guest 4375874]

Muzzle, Korathi Heatwave and Regis Bloodlust are some neutral cards that are generally good but particularly excellent against Lippy. Lippy + Morkvarg + Roach + Knickers is 15 points for 37 provisions. That itself isn't unreasonable at all, especially when we start comparing it with other combos in the game. Lippy decks get their points in strong surges, be it the artifact version or the Cerys/Vildkaarl version.

Now pretty much all meta decks already run counters for this. Lacerate for Cerys and heatwave for the artifact/vildkaarl. This is not even to mention the Nilfgaard matchup (which is super prominent) running Sweers/Yennefer. I have to disagree with you that Lippy decks (any of them) are on par with double ball in terms of quality. Not even close, the playrates will probably speak for themselves here.

Lippy has a deploy ability not order...Muzzle does nothing . Same for all the cards you mentioned so you haven't offered a counter. Double ball is bad but I can still remove or destroy an artifact, I can do nothing against Lippy and again it's not just a matter of adding points to the field so much as having your best cards back for use which is equally bad. As I said, often times you use your best cards or combos in the 1st round. With Lippy you basically are playing the 1st round a second time only this time your opponent doesn't have their best cards in hand but you do