Back on track, with less hostility, please.
Two unnecessary posts deleted.
Two unnecessary posts deleted.
#1. The inability for the development team to actually patch the game successfully whilst listening to the playerbase.
A few examples.
"We want more freedom, like more agile units."
CDPR: *everything is agile*
"we hate how some golds are so problematic"
CDPR: *gold immunity gone*
"Guys we feel like you're going in the wrong direction now"
CDPR: *Does another overhaul*
"We want the long names back."
CDPR: *Starts renaming everything.*
"We are tired of ithlinne."
CDPR: *Destroys tremmors.*
"We want more control options in this current meta!"
CDPR: *changes the entire meta and then give them more control options on top of that completely disregarding the meta changes so everyone plays removal everything*
And most commonly: "This deck is problematic, the problem lies here 'x' and here 'x'."
CDPR: *Deletes it from the game and any tags or interesting concepts that were tied to its success*
Just... yeah.
A few examples.
"We want more freedom, like more agile units."
CDPR: *everything is agile*
"we hate how some golds are so problematic"
CDPR: *gold immunity gone*
"Guys we feel like you're going in the wrong direction now"
CDPR: *Does another overhaul*
"We want the long names back."
CDPR: *Starts renaming everything.*
"We are tired of ithlinne."
CDPR: *Destroys tremmors.*
"We want more control options in this current meta!"
CDPR: *changes the entire meta and then give them more control options on top of that completely disregarding the meta changes so everyone plays removal everything*
And most commonly: "This deck is problematic, the problem lies here 'x' and here 'x'."
CDPR: *Deletes it from the game and any tags or interesting concepts that were tied to its success*
Just... yeah.
Shadow-Stalker;n10547692 said:
I mean its easy to blame big corporate for everything. I think the community should take some blame as well here honestly. I don't think the community was that simple with their requests with asking for changes and you know that. For example if you never play'd closed beta, ask about PFI mardrome cheese. that was unbelievable hell. Also I don't think everything you mentioned is a problem either. Im down for no gold immunities. TBF the tremor combo with ithline was stupid theyhad to do something about that. Ill agree that everything being agile is alittle weird and would be nice to have like row bonuses for your cards corresponding row and keep everything having agile. As far as names go i don't see how that's a big deal either way like whether or not they did that change according to what your perception of what the community wanted is. And yeh ill agree on changing theentire meta bit, i wasn't around for it though. playing other games. I can't say every point of yours is wrong like with ithline maybe they coulda approached it different. I think they're doing a decent job. Mind you slow progression but its progression. This game has come so far compaired to closed beta
jeremyb616;n10547852 said:
And is was still funnier to face against, because it wasnt some bronze-power-play each turn.
The thing what must disturbs me right now is, that bronze cards are to powerfull, so making a good play doesnt feel good any more. All below 12 points an considered as bad, silvers are normaly good as bronze but then stronger than a average Gold. Bronze should be solid silver and hold should be spicy. Sometimes i think about drop a gold out of my deck for a bronze...
It is still the case that Farseer doesn't reliably trigger unless on the siege row. More things like this would be welcomed, as well as your suggestion of plus ones.iamthedave;n10541852 said:
OG.laloquaint;n10548452 said:
No I'm just not sugar coating it so the people that pushed a half assed bug ridden patch before Christmas to cash in don't feel bad.
Shadow-Stalker;n10548472 said:
Most of the bugs have been fixed though. I'd rather have people complain about the server/connection problems honestly, they really suck.
Honestly, I don't see what the preferential row system would change about the game... Igni would get stronger, but that's about it. Weather would remain the same, and so would movement.
I think that a combination of Complete Row Locks, Agility and Partial agility (2 rows) would be the only solution.
I think that a combination of Complete Row Locks, Agility and Partial agility (2 rows) would be the only solution.
Shadow-Stalker;n10547692 said:
I feel that should be *changes the entire meta so lock/control means nothing, then adds more control cards.
But seriously:
1. coinflip/tempo/card advantage are all literally part of the same problem: high value tempo cards which can swing for 25-35+ points, leaving your opponent unable to respond without incurring card disadvantage or passing for loss.
2. lack of general build options, because everything is shoe-horned into an archetype, which leads to extremely monotonous and repetitive gameplay. do not play outside of the sandbox.
3. lack of options in the initial draw. should be increased to a dozen cards instead of 2, with 2 mulligans, to slightly reduce the RNG dependency of decks. CDPR has stated on multiple occasions that Gwent is not the same as the Witcher 3 card game, hence agile units, weather changes, gold immunity, etc...yet despite all these changes, card draws have never even been contemplated... sacred ground...
4. dead/useless cards: most neutrals fall into this category, but even the most recent cards are simply uninspired and pretty pointless additions.
5. lack of genuine interactivity besides removal. locks are now rarely used, as very few decks rely on triggered units, unlike the initial betas.
6. faction imbalances, such as the state of NR without henselt, or those which are predictable and subject to removal like monsters consume, etc... quen sign used to be a viable option and interesting mechanic (if only it prevented scorch), but it's now been replaced by the lame wyvern shield...
7. lack of meaningful row synergy, as mentioned previously in this thread. not all units should be agile, or should gain advantages on specific rows, or agile on 2 rows only, like old ST.
in general, i feel as if there is significantly less strategy involved and more point spam, tempo and card advantage deck cheese.
Last edited:
Thoughts on "Fog of War" to balance coinflip? (My other idea)
If you go first your plays are hidden until your opponent plays their first unit on the field
In this way they essentially have to "Scout" the field and only find out then that they are being invaded
Next release you could have units that create fog of war on a specific lane (during the match) . . .
. . . until your opponent plays a new unit there; themselves, they will be fighting partially blind
Also I'd like to point out. ., .
That the game solves so many problems that other card games are plagued with
It sounds like there is plenty of variety already; we just need balance changes to have the incentive to play them
If you go first your plays are hidden until your opponent plays their first unit on the field
In this way they essentially have to "Scout" the field and only find out then that they are being invaded
Next release you could have units that create fog of war on a specific lane (during the match) . . .
. . . until your opponent plays a new unit there; themselves, they will be fighting partially blind
Also I'd like to point out. ., .
That the game solves so many problems that other card games are plagued with
It sounds like there is plenty of variety already; we just need balance changes to have the incentive to play them
PrincessMassacre;n10548802 said:
1. Well... if there isn't the capacity for making those plays, how would you ever win a round? Let alone come back from a card down? Unless I'm mistaking your point.
2. Not necessarily a problem; it's just that too few archetypes are viable, and there aren't enough options inside the archetypes to build them in any way but one. I think the 'leader' format of Gwent means it will always be archetype based. In theory this should improve over time, as more cards are released that have different synergies and so allow different sorts of machine deck or foltest deck or whatever. in theory.
3. I'm not sure if a dozen cards would be an improvement. Ten with three mulligans puts pressure on you to deck build efficiently. It's good to have that pressure. Why do you think the extra two cards would be good?
4. Always going to be a problem. CDPR need to embrace this simple fact of card games. Look at Magic: The Gathering. Roughly 40% of every set is worthless, unplayable trash. Hopefully with Arena they can deal with it better, since everything will see play there now and again.
5. This one's a definite problem. The introduction of duel is a step in the right direction, as is the new Morenn card. I'd alter your point though in that plenty of decks do rely on triggered units, but removal is simply better than locks in 90% of situations. Why would you ever lock something when you can kill it? Ironically the best fix to this is MORE carry over units like Morkvarg and Olgierd, since the only way to stop them is in fact by locking (or banishing, but that'll always be a 'premium' removal effect). Things that you don't actually want to kill because it's almost a waste of a card. Deathwish could also incentivise locks; but the problem remains that locking a unit doesn't give you much save the base strength of whatever unit you're playing. Elven merc into shackles gets you a few points. merc into thunder gets you 10. That right there is a fundamental problem that rises from GWENT having a singular win condition. That which doesn't actively generate points (or actively remove them from the opponent) is simply not moving closer to winning the game, and removing future points isn't as good as removing the points that are there already (and again, removal does that job better).
6. I don't think that's how it worked. Didn't CDPR say Quen was causing engine problems behind the scenes?
7. They must do something with rows at some point. The agile patch was a fine thing to experiment with, but I think the evidence is in that it was not a good idea overall. Conversely, I think the evidence shows that the gold immunity patch WAS a good idea.
The game is in a better state than it was Midwinter, and I feel it's making baby steps in the right direction. I really hope they can start at least jogging, though. Arena on its own isn't going to help a lot.
They could do some things with tags too.
Like all mages are immune to weather, soldiers get 1 armor when played on the same row or something.
Coinflip is hard to fix but you could make it more fun like both draw a copy of a random unit and play it or something.
Like all mages are immune to weather, soldiers get 1 armor when played on the same row or something.
Coinflip is hard to fix but you could make it more fun like both draw a copy of a random unit and play it or something.
iamthedave;n10551232 said:
Hmm, generally it is, but the only things that play with active abilities anymore are greatswords, axemen and nekkers, all of which have plenty of revivals and slyzards. I run a mixed spotter and spy deck with Auckes and Decoy for the potential of a Quadruple lock and it is an engine killer. You see removal is generally better because it also reduces the points but locks keep the unit on the field so graveyard interaction cannot take place. There is that
ser2440;n10560452 said:Hmm, generally it is, but the only things that play with active abilities anymore are greatswords, axemen and nekkers, all of which have plenty of revivals and slyzards. I run a mixed spotter and spy deck with Auckes and Decoy for the potential of a Quadruple lock and it is an engine killer. You see removal is generally better because it also reduces the points but locks keep the unit on the field so graveyard interaction cannot take place. There is that
I'd say that's untrue. NR uses the armour boost guy, a lot of ST decks use Vrihedd Brigade or the hawker smuggler. They aren't nearly as powerful as greatswords, of course, or axemen, but they're still worthy lock targets. Locks vs spies has potential as well. But removal is - generally - better, and when you build a deck for ladder you have to aim for the most possible decks.
Granted, I haven't tried locks in Ladder. But even in NR's case you deny Shani a target.
Also, I am at 4.1k MMR and all I've seen in the ladder in terms of active ability units are Greatswords along with a couple of axemen and maybe one or two Kaedweni Siege Supports. That's why in all cases it might be worth including
if you ever try it, let me know what you think.In my opinion the 2 big advantages removal offers are flexibility (you can damage high power units to get some points while locks are usually incapable of doing so even semi-decently) and that removal options are far more in every deck and far more widely available. You have bronze, silver and gold removal and often staggering amounts of it available.
iamthedave;n10545532 said:
I can't believe in what a just read.
You, sir, are wrong.
It's beyond the point of ONLY netdecks, now they have even STAGED ACTION TURNS.
Which cards goes first, which goes second, if you opponent plays this you are going to play that.
Every game feels SCRIPTED
Ranarch;n10565102 said:
You do realise that's been the case since forever, right? Magic the Gathering does the same thing. You, sir, are outraged over something that's as old as netdecking itself.
You also didn't disprove anything I said, so no, I'm not wrong.