I mean, yes, you're right, but that's the point - it already is like that, effectively, except it's only a few select overpowered engines/pseudoengines that are allowed to compete. They aren't really countered by removal, as demonstrated by the Alumni example above.Nerfing removal too hard would result in a game where the only goal is to have more engines than the opponent, that's why CDPR won't do that. The game needs pointslam, engines and control to stay interesting, and they should keep each other in check. Too strong control (Double Ball, Milva), pointslam (SK Warriors back then, Viy) or engines (we don't need examples here) all lead to a binary and boring game, at least for me it would.
Massive pointslams, combos or shall we call 'finishers' are not necessarily an issue, if the game is properly designed and balanced around them. If generally every faction (and potentially most archetypes) have access to something similar in power, and not in effect, it is fine. Yes, they deliver a decisive amount of points, but so shall you. Call it an ultimate of the deck you play (or play against).There needn't only be 3 ways to play. We just need some decent mechanics that rely on skill, timing and prediction to pull off.
For example, we have Black Blood as a counter to board boosting, but with no body and a decently high provision cost, it's never gonna see play. The thing that's irritating is that a lot of the most broken cards at the moment have zero counterplay, and no matter what the state of the game is they can get their full effect off every time.
Speaking of boosts though, I just played against a guy playing a handbuff deck and he had more removal cards in his deck than he did boost cards. More than some actual removal decks. And he STILL managed to knock out a decent pointswing at the end with Torgque or whatever you call it. I won, but still, it was annoying to play against.
The issue with big plays is that they render other plays irrelevant. If a game has 15 plays where good vs. bad plays change the outcome by a handful of points, and one play with a swing of 30+, the match will almost always boil down to that one play (and far too often to whether a key card is drawn at the right time).Massive pointslams, combos or shall we call 'finishers' are not necessarily an issue, if the game is properly designed and balanced around them. If generally every faction (and potentially most archetypes) have access to something similar in power, and not in effect, it is fine. Yes, they deliver a decisive amount of points, but so shall you. Call it an ultimate of the deck you play (or play against).
As the general direction of the game is moving towards these being a common part of most decks, I think it is worthless to stress too much about them being a thing in Gwent - focus should be more towards how to bring more and more decktypes to the same level of power, either by improving existing cards/combos or granting them new tools to provide competitiveness.
I for one don't see these heavy plays an issue as long as you can match them in power or have a reasonable way to play around them, potentially counter them.
in Gwent - focus should be more towards how to bring more and more decktypes to the same level of power, either by improving existing cards/combos or granting them new tools to provide competitiveness.
I'd fundamentally disagree here. While I admit that powercreep brings lots of challenges and difficulties that need to be addressed, it is a vital part of a cardgame (and literally any similar genres). New content has to be at least compelling for players, otherwise it will not generate profit or direct income that is based on purchases. And since this is not a friends & family product brought to us by mere generosity of the developers, I believe we need to at least accept some standards.Although on the surface this seems like a sensible statement, the exact process you describe is what leads to power creep. And power creep is never good.
And this challenge is failed over and over again.The cahllenge comes from continously keeping your game on a relatively balanced and diverse state.
Realistically, the only deck that has enough removal to prevent Alumni from taking off is an equally toxic removal deck, like the pre-nerf Milva.Removing hard removal cards in the current meta would just kill the game. When you have archetypes like NR Mages that will generate 20 points from engines you need a lot of removal.
Have to say it: Even small changes can ruin the meta. And they did it, the meta before the patch was kind of O.K. Now it's full of toxic crap.