Removal to point generation ratio and state of the game

[Nerevarine228]

You tell me how to win a hundred games with invigorate, stockpile, and all the other trash leaders without going neutral heavy.

This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but sure. You don't win with stockpile, because it's criminally undertuned, but if you really must, add as many charge-related things as you can. This could work, but just now, kings engines are dropping like flies.
Invigorate is an okay tool for (kinda) emulating NR-like engine safety. Not having a real leader sucks, but your individual cards have better chances of achieving something, so there's that.

Blizzard is one card, easily defeated thanks to initiative tag and ineffective in many other situations if the opponent runs even basic point control.

But that's the point. Their tricks aganst yours. Point control requires additional effort, and so does setting up a Blizzard.

Engines are out of control the last few updates.

NR engines are, and mostly just thanks to them being a)numerous b)easily boosted on deploy c) quite big by default. The fact that you only mentioned them further confirms that. But for some reason you condemn an entire class of units, just because a very particular subset of them has broken interactions. Blame NR (and shieldwall in particula), not the engines as a class.

Defenders to protect them

Mentioned that in op-post. Right now even a Defender-Sigridifa-Defender-Sukrus chain often isn't enough to prevent your opponent from killing what they want to kill, and your only choice in the matter is watching helplessly. The reason it works for NR is because they have one of the two best defenders that cannot be removed without a tech card. There's also Azar, but that one is a separate issue altogether and shouldn't have ever been added to the game.

scenarios to spawn at least one of them.

Scenarios are also hellishly expensive and risky, so...duh?

Order engines that play for way more than provision cost. This is a real problem.

Again, a real NR problem with being overtuned across the board.

I despise repeated meta matches.

A separate issue altogether, but meta is what it is in large part because there's no way to play a huge amount of existing archetypes...precisely because they actively require stuff to remain on board, not because they can't techincally do what they should. Tried making elven scouts work, didn't pan out because they die even when handbuffed before deployment with portal, and bam, traps aren't viable.

You complain about swarms. But meta shifted towards swarms PRECISELY because there was no good way to play around few tall units in the game (rip Big Dummies), with tall removal being so accessible. You dislike swarms? Blame Double Ball (damn, it feels GREAT to not deal with that anymore!).
So what if we added more wide punish as well?
Meta would shift towards low-unit. And what if...okay, you (hopefully) get the idea. Removal doesn't solve powercreep, it merely shifts the meta towards something that can survive it, while simultaneously making more cards non-viable. In the end, removal IS powercreep (well, this and the fact new stuff is inexplicably stronger than what we had before). Want to see any diversity in the game? Let engines breathe at least a bit.
A reminder - NR is exempt from this, because Vysogota needs to die in fire, preferably taking Shieldwall and Viraxas with him

But ask me if I love shutting down meta decks with over the top removals,

That hurt anything creative way more than it hurts meta decks. You, thus, contribute to the problem you complain about.

The key is who you are up against more than what you are running. If your opponent goes removal heavy and you go removal heavy the game is a mess. If both go offense heavy the game is essentially an uneven race (based mostly on who is playing which faction and who draws better engines.) When one player is running offense and the other defense it all boils down to tall vs wide.

And not once have you mentioned any decks actually balanced in terms of offence/defence, not hyperfocused on one thing. But that's how decks should be, shouldn't it? A bit of this, a bit of that for spiciness, some big numbers, some killing power, to keep things both interesting and fresh.

The game desperately needs to restore faction identity.

And that I agree with. But adding more ways to kill things would only make this less likely to happen.

 

[wonderboy870]

This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but sure. You don't win with stockpile, because it's criminally undertuned, but if you really must, add as many charge-related things as you can. This could work, but just now, kings engines are dropping like flies.
Invigorate is an okay tool for (kinda) emulating NR-like engine safety. Not having a real leader sucks, but your individual cards have better chances of achieving something, so there's that.


But that's the point. Their tricks aganst yours. Point control requires additional effort, and so does setting up a Blizzard.


NR engines are, and mostly just thanks to them being a)numerous b)easily boosted on deploy c) quite big by default. The fact that you only mentioned them further confirms that. But for some reason you condemn an entire class of units, just because a very particular subset of them has broken interactions. Blame NR (and shieldwall in particula), not the engines as a class.


Mentioned that in op-post. Right now even a Defender-Sigridifa-Defender-Sukrus chain often isn't enough to prevent your opponent from killing what they want to kill, and your only choice in the matter is watching helplessly. The reason it works for NR is because they have one of the two best defenders that cannot be removed without a tech card. There's also Azar, but that one is a separate issue altogether and shouldn't have ever been added to the game.


Scenarios are also hellishly expensive and risky, so...duh?


Again, a real NR problem with being overtuned across the board.



A separate issue altogether, but meta is what it is in large part because there's no way to play a huge amount of existing archetypes...precisely because they actively require stuff to remain on board, not because they can't techincally do what they should. Tried making elven scouts work, didn't pan out because they die even when handbuffed before deployment with portal, and bam, traps aren't viable.

You complain about swarms. But meta shifted towards swarms PRECISELY because there was no good way to play around few tall units in the game (rip Big Dummies), with tall removal being so accessible. You dislike swarms? Blame Double Ball (damn, it feels GREAT to not deal with that anymore!).
So what if we added more wide punish as well?
Meta would shift towards low-unit. And what if...okay, you (hopefully) get the idea. Removal doesn't solve powercreep, it merely shifts the meta towards something that can survive it, while simultaneously making more cards non-viable. In the end, removal IS powercreep (well, this and the fact new stuff is inexplicably stronger than what we had before). Want to see any diversity in the game? Let engines breathe at least a bit.
A reminder - NR is exempt from this, because Vysogota needs to die in fire, preferably taking Shieldwall and Viraxas with him


That hurt anything creative way more than it hurts meta decks. You, thus, contribute to the problem you complain about.


And not once have you mentioned any decks actually balanced in terms of offence/defence, not hyperfocused on one thing. But that's how decks should be, shouldn't it? A bit of this, a bit of that for spiciness, some big numbers, some killing power, to keep things both interesting and fresh.


And that I agree with. But adding more ways to kill things would only make this less likely to happen.

You know it’s funny, reading this I couldn’t quite figure out how you managed to respond to everything I said and yet ignore the majority of what I said at the same time. I am going to go ahead and say it is my fault. I need to be more clear. So I will try again and this time please ask questions if you need help following.

NR is the engine faction, but they are not the only faction out of control with engines at present. SY has frigate equivalents that don’t require ending your turn to fill your row. They have lonely champions to absorb that power and then allow for the creation of more. Do you know why lonely champions (despite having immunity) doesn’t see much play? People don’t like putting that many points into a card that can be scorched, G Ignied, or otherwise insta killed. Your response is probably that this is a bad thing. That you want them to be able to execute their best offense uninterrupted and the fun comes from doing the same against them. The problem is at the end of the day the game becomes about luck of the draw and faction matchup. For example a symbiosis deck will destroy that congregate. SY players would in fact have no reason to ever play against NR or ST because either of them can outpace SY. The game is only strategic when you can run both offense and defense.

Your argument suggests the imbalance of the game is due to over abundance of removal. Yet what little balance that actually exists counts on that removal to prevent runaway engines. Again i come back to ST. With just four symbiosis units on board and nature’s gift leader every nature card plays for 5 extra points. If you limit the removal options you need to expand the boosts in nature and now with hamadrayds uninterrupted you are getting an additional 4 points per turn. Plus you could throw in two matrons and two sentrys and add another 6 point engine for the first round.

You seem to think I hate engines in principle, I don’t. What I dislike is the game removing weather removal, removing artifact removal (instead of fixing it with dual options for each removal card,) and forcing players to watch enemy combos instead of interact with them. Not all factions are created equal and not all matches are going to be equal. Play Shieldwall against Shieldwall five times in a row with a friend and tell me what you think.

I could respond more but I am not sure there is a point. My earlier post explained my thinking about how bad leaders are only useable with defensive hands. It explained my problem with offense heavy vs offense heavy. It gave you background to understand my experience and support my position. I suggest you read it again for content rather than ammunition.

 

[Nerevarine228]

Your response is probably that this is a bad thing.

Yes, and not just "bad", but "game-killing".
Cards and combos are there to be played, not turned into impossible-to-execute garbage by a couple of solve-everything-unconditionally other cards.

That you want them to be able to execute their best offense uninterrupted and the fun comes from doing the same against them

Not exactly. I don't really hate non-interactive pointslams, but that's beside the point. I do agree that matches are more fun when they're interactive.
Disruption of the opponent's side of the board should be a possibility, but also an important, weighted and most of all, NON-OBLIGATORY option, and not something readily available at all times because you have packed you deck choke-full of nukes. You seem to not understand why such a playstyle is a problem, so let me explain -

when you build your deck this way, you account for its low unit value and plan accordingly, finisher and all, and as such Saen... invulnerable dragon thing is popular enough atm, also.
You opponent's values, however, may depend on combos (greedy or otherwise, it doesn't matter in the end) and setup, which inherently puts them at disadvantage, because they can't execute their strategy at all if you deny them all and every attempt at setup. And you can do it consistently, too, especially with some Imposter decks.
edit: Ironically, you defeat your own point - because removal spam is way more uninteractible than most kinds of pointslam. When you face it, there's NOTHING you can do, apart from playing a deck with no important units in the first place. And no, pointing out SW can pointslam just fine doesn't prove anything. It's just overtuned.

Unless, of course, it's a major swarm, it which case you had it coming, according to your logic.
In you own words -

The problem is at the end of the day the game becomes about luck of the draw and faction matchup

...except it has always been to a degree, currently less than ever, thanks to improved consistency. Note that some people consider it a very bad thing.

For example a symbiosis deck will destroy that congregate.

A very questionable statement. Symbiosis isn't exactly good against gigaswarms.

SY players would in fact have no reason to ever play against NR or ST because either of them can outpace SY. The game is only strategic when you can run both offense and defense.

Another one. Have you seen any of those Igor decks, or just what Dies Irae can do?

With just four symbiosis units on board and nature’s gift leader every nature card plays for 5 extra points.

"Just four"? Some Symbiosis decks only have that many in the first place (sometimes less), and with the exception of Hamadryads, they're very vulnerable. Under regular circustances, these treants reach 2 points tops, and not all of them, but the ones spawned later into the round. Of course, if you're willing to run the evolving card...but that comes with a whole bunch of other problems, holding the deck back.

Plus you could throw in two matrons and two sentrys and add another 6 point engine for the first round.

And yet I've never seen such a thing. Presumably because provision is already fairly tight at that point.

You seem to think I hate engines in principle, I don’t. What I dislike is the game removing weather removal, removing artifact removal (instead of fixing it with dual options for each removal card,) and forcing players to watch enemy combos instead of interact with them. Not all factions are created equal and not all matches are going to be equal. Play Shieldwall against Shieldwall five times in a row with a friend and tell me what you think.

The same as now - "watching enemy combos without interacting with them" is really just playing against Shieldwall thing, and not a general trend in the game. The general trend is quite the reverse, actually - if you aren't Shieldwalling or AzarJaved'ing, you aren't allowed to play your non-swarm combos, ever, under any circumstances.

You statement, thus, doesn't quite entail what your think it does. Does it prove that SW needs a nerf? Yes. Does it mean we need more disruption on the game? Maybe, if we're actually talking about weather and other non-instant wide-hitting stuff (but I kinda think it's already there, just underrated).
Does it mean current abundance and user-friendliness of single-target nukes is okay? Hell no. Those actually need more restrictions and various conditions, like Initiative, or high(er) Bloodthirst, or maybe having its effects scale with the amount of a (tagname) units on board, etc.
If you still don't understand why, reread the second paragraph.

tl;dr: ability to easily disrupt most combos on the game without committing much kills diversity of the game.

 

[Damashiuchi]

ability to easily disrupt most combos on the game without committing much kills diversity of the game.

True, but the ability to easily execute most combos without risking much can kill it too.

 

[quintivarium]

The big problem I see with too much removal is that all viable cards must play for immediate value. Complex combinations of three or more cards are out of the question because one will almost always be removed. Play and counter play is at best binary and likely nonexistent because there is very little left to tactically prevent.

But as Gwent currently stands, the removal is essential to counter the too many, two powerful, too easy engines. Two or more point a turn engines that do not severely limit the deck, unless easy to shut down and hard to restart (e.g. Windhalm) should simply not exist.

 

[Nerevarine228]

True, but the ability to easily execute most combos without risking much can kill it too.

True as well. Except Gwent has lock, reset, movement, row punish and purify mechanics already(and some oddball ones like Blizzard/Glorious Hunt) and only a few combos can't be disrupted/countered/reverted with these.


But people mostly prefer not to bother, and why would they? Damage/hard removal is abundant and accessible, and doesn't ever brick completely.
Contrary to the popular opinion, nerfing them doesn't automatically equate to pointslam meta. Maybe people would remember about stuff like Artifact Compression or even Mandragora, Lacerate, Surrender, Lambert, Blizzard, Wolfsbane... honestly, there's tech for anything in the game, it's just powercrept by superior solve-all removal options.

Oh, and while we are here - introduction of the veil mechanic was an awful solution to poison spam. Doesn't really help against poison most of the time, but sure harms other kinds of statuses (remember when vampires were decent just a few months ago?).
It isn't a bad defensive mechanic, per se, the fact that many units have it inherently is.

So now imagine for a second that inherent veil got nuked from the game, and direct unconditional removal was made considerably more expensive.
Would we be lost to pointslam?
No.
Would the game become more diverse?
Yes.
What's the downside?

 

[BAT0MAN]

Gwent is literally just a rock, paper, and scissors game now.
And why should they care about balancing and the state of the game as long as they make money?
That's the truth.

 

[Bleach25]

True as well. Except Gwent has lock, reset, movement, row punish and purify mechanics already(and some oddball ones like Blizzard/Glorious Hunt) and only a few combos can't be disrupted/countered/reverted with these.


But people mostly prefer not to bother, and why would they? Damage/hard removal is abundant and accessible, and doesn't ever brick completely.
Contrary to the popular opinion, nerfing them doesn't automatically equate to pointslam meta. Maybe people would remember about stuff like Artifact Compression or even Mandragora, Lacerate, Surrender, Lambert, Blizzard, Wolfsbane... honestly, there's tech for anything in the game, it's just powercrept by superior solve-all removal options.

Oh, and while we are here - introduction of the veil mechanic was an awful solution to poison spam. Doesn't really help against poison most of the time, but sure harms other kinds of statuses (remember when vampires were decent just a few months ago?).
It isn't a bad defensive mechanic, per se, the fact that many units have it inherently is.

So now imagine for a second that inherent veil got nuked from the game, and direct unconditional removal was made considerably more expensive.
Would we be lost to pointslam?
No.
Would the game become more diverse?
Yes.
What's the downside?

Actually the introduction of veil played an important role in countering poison. Previously the file of thumb was playing uninteractively and throwing at the opponent small-body units, now you also have the chance to play units that are practically unaffected by poison, without having to harm your own strategy

 

[ya1]

It's an interesting discussion. The problem described here is indeed extremely toxic and frustrating to deal with. But this is not the real problem with Gwent, just a symptom of it. The real problem is top end card value ceilings and - ironically - the total decline of the "control faction" which is NG.

Let's start with the latter. Since NG cannot contend, meta right now is extremely greedy: Hemas, Dracoturtles, Vysygotas and 30tall Tridams, Fallen Knights, (declined now) Keltulis with Ciri, etc. The only way to compete is either to match that greed or go all-in with control (and still have a few tempo plays which NG lacks so it's is out). So we either participate in a talent competition of who draws more golds to "skillfully and creatively" place them on the board rather then in the graveyard a'la solitaire. Or as ranted on in this thread we are forced onto the all-out removal degeneracy a'la hit the mole. This is the problem of all Gwent - lack of balance between factions especially the "meta-influential" faction like NG - not just the Precision Strike deck. The latter is just a symptom.

But the realest of real problems of Gwent is the out-of-this-Earth value ceilings, and I am really struggling to understand why devs do nothing about it. I get they want the action and the back-and-forth thing to be a thing but for one card to be able to outpoint like 7 cards in a game where a) getting more points wins and b) draws are almost totally random? This is sick-toxic. Some card abilities are just too strong when unanswered. Vysygota is a textbook example. But there are others: Dracoturtle, Weavess: Incantation, Binci and Saul, the SK druid that damages every unit by half, Kiki, etc. Even though some of these cards do not have decks to dominate at the moment, they just wait for card packages or leaders to get buffed to compliment them and then they explode in a mushroom cloud of brokenness (like nobody played Vysygota before SW). It is cards like these that force this ridiculous amount of removal. Like nobody played Curse of Corruption until recently. No wonder they do now since 30tall units are a norm.

In conclusion, it's not ST PS that is broken with the removal. The whole Gwent is broken on different levels of design, and certain decks or cards are but a symptom of it.