Sad Pro Rank

[NoGG4Netdeckers]

Please refrain from personal attacks. I'm no moderator, but this really contributes nothing to the thread I've created to simply rant about netdecks in the high ranks.

This is not a personal attack as much as it's a huge flaw in the English language, after reading it again I can see how it could be interpreted that way. When I said "you", I meant people in general, not him in particular. Edited it to say "one" instead, so no more misunderstandings.

 

[saodhar]

This is not a personal attack as much as it's a huge flaw in the English language, after reading it again I can see how it could be interpreted that way. When I said you, I meant people in general, not him in particular.

It seems @El.Zappo also saw it as referring to him (them? I don't actually know who this user is in the real world and I'm really bad with all this pronouns stuff) personally. His (I'll stick with this) point of view really sheds some needed light on the situation. And while I completely disagree with "play to learn to win" approach, everyone is free to play as they wish (they just shouldn't expect everyone loving or even GG'ing it).
And yes, English losing the "thou" word and using "you" as both singular and plural is sometimes a huge pain.

 

[Gimme_a_break]

Fourth, from a purely play-strategy point of view, a limited meta is actually desirable. The best players plan their plays based upon predicting their opponent’s likely response, their best response to that response, etc. — much as in a game of chess. That requires some ability to predict an opponent’s hand — which requires knowledge of their deck. There is a reason most top pros prefer open deck-list formats. A limited meta helps one predict opponent decks. The meta could probably be much larger than the current meta, and still achieve this, but an infinite meta is not desirable from a competitive viewpoint.

Oh dear. If Gwent should go in the direction of chess game, then let's not waste our time here and switch to chess.
The question here is, who is this game for? Top pro players, so that they can have their "giga-brain" predictions, or masses, that want to enjoy some unpredictable matches? In either case, I still think, the larger the meta is, the better, because it forces players to predict more variants than just a couple of them (which would really distinguish the best players from mediocre ones), not to mention it's more entertaining.

 

[El.Zappo]

Yes I interpreted that as referring to me, but not as a personal attack. I was genuinely confused, since I originally said I had a quite pleasant experience on PRO Rank. Also I'm certainly not bored by the decks that I play, as I mentioned I can craft around 1-2 decks per season and I rather stick to decks where I know it will work instead of risking failure and losing the scrap since that might set me into a bad spot for a considerable time.

This is all very easy if you own all of the cards and can just freely try out whatever you want. Take the ST Elves deck that CDPR proposes for this season. Crafting any version of that will cost me 6k scrap, so basically everything that I have collected for this season. I have little to no experience with ST, so if I come up with a deck by myself that will almost certainly be a failure.

And it will stay that way, because I can't make it better for quite some time, getting a single additional gold for this deck will take a few days. And during that time it means playing Alumni or something else that will guarantee me wins, because otherwise I don't get scrap to improve the failed deck.

That's why I called this argumentation elitist. If you were in top 500 a few times, it's save to say you are playing for a while and probably own most of the cards. So you can try out new decks and optimize them without any penalty. The possible penalty for me is to be stuck with something that doesn't work for 1-2 weeks without being able to improve it. If that is fun to you, fine. It's not for me.

 

[quintivarium]

Oh dear. If Gwent should go in the direction of chess game, then let's not waste our time here and switch to chess.

I might reply that if we go too far in the opposite direction, where anticipating and responding to opponent moves is either impossible or irrelevant, we might as well just play craps. But the good news is that I think there is a middle ground. Right now, the meta is way narrower than would be desired (although I think the developers are trying to remedy this). And it is offset by gameplay that is too little influence by player skill (due in large part to the disparity in value between top gold and bronze cards as well as cards that "demand" answers). Unfortunately, I don't think developers are doing enough to address this issue. Maybe when the lack of viable archetypes is addressed....

 

[ShinAkira00]

Oh dear. If Gwent should go in the direction of chess game, then let's not waste our time here and switch to chess.
The question here is, who is this game for? Top pro players, so that they can have their "giga-brain" predictions, or masses, that want to enjoy some unpredictable matches? In either case, I still think, the larger the meta is, the better, because it forces players to predict more variants than just a couple of them (which would really distinguish the best players from mediocre ones), not to mention it's more entertaining.

Oh dear, not chess. Why would any game want to borrow from one of the oldest and popular games ever created. That would be so awful. Let's make it solitaire instead

 

[Riven-Twain]

Moderator: Topic, please.

 

[saodhar]

Pro rank is getting worse by the month. Instead of accumulating the best of the player base, it's gathering the worst. Or is this the best? Then this game is truly dead.

 

[Luclon1474]

Pro rank is getting worse by the month. Instead of accumulating the best of the player base, it's gathering the worst. Or is this the best? Then this game is truly dead.

I remember the first time I reached Pro Rank...first 3 games were against Golden Nekker decks, forfeitted all of them, declined the Pro Rank immediately and thought: "never anymore".

And then I remember watching by chance a couple of games of the Masters, only to witness the "legendary" players using always the same meta decks. And I thought: "It's a festival of the obvious, why have I invested so much time on this game?"

I don't remember another pc game in which climbing the ranks is actually unpleasant.

 

[saodhar]

I remember the first time I reached Pro Rank...first 3 games were against Golden Nekker decks, forfeitted all of them, declined the Pro Rank immediately and thought: "never anymore".

And then I remember watching by chance a couple of games of the Masters, only to witness the "legendary" players using always the same meta decks. And I thought: "It's a festival of the obvious, why have I invested so much time on this game?"

I don't remember another pc game in which climbing the ranks is actually unpleasant.

Sadly, if you play cycle quests (and they require ranked matches), you get to Pro even against your will.

 

[DRK3]

Pro rank can be very... deceitful. Because by now, its meaningless. It doesnt include all the good players, nor does it include only good players, far from it.
The conditions have been loosened and now virtually any player that plays regularly, mostly on ranked, will eventually get there. Good players will get there with anything, decent players will get there with patience and bad players will get there with metadecks.

There are no trustworthy numbers on Gwent's total playerbase, but i wouldnt be surprised if more than half of the players who play mostly on ranked get to pro rank. It validates them and helps keeping them hooked in the game. Its like giving out a trophy to everyone so everyone's happy and feels like a winner.

I won't go deep into the ol' "Back in the days..." talk, but back in betas, getting to pro rank was actually challenging, i am sad to admit i had never done it, but not only was the competition fiercer and smarter, the system after a certain point required more wins (against skilled opponents) than losses to progress, which is something now you only find in high pro rank, above 2600MMR and fighting for top 200.

And then I remember watching by chance a couple of games of the Masters, only to witness the "legendary" players using always the same meta decks. And I thought: "It's a festival of the obvious, why have I invested so much time on this game?"

Gwent has a very low skill ceiling, despite the statements of tournament commentators who claim otherwise. I am not saying pro players aren't actually good, i am saying this game doesnt let them shine and demonstrate their skill and tactical thinking.
Most matches are decided by luck of the draws, even though those metadecks are already designed to minimize the influence of luck, prioritizing consistency and versatility.

Sadly, if you play cycle quests (and they require ranked matches), you get to Pro even against your will.

I think these cycles are the last attempt to draw players from casual into ranked, and judging by me and you alone, it seems to be working. It's yet another form of progression (its ridiculous how many we have by now - level/prestige, rank, journey level, cycle level) that would certainly work on casual play and i would not touch ranked otherwise, but you feel like you are missing out if you ignore it.
I already said to myself i wont bother getting to lv250 this cycle, i even hate the new cardback, but the draw of completing quests and building new decks is always appealing, at least to me.

 

[StanislavOZZO]

I think these cycles are the last attempt to draw players from casual into ranked, and judging by me and you alone, it seems to be working. It's yet another form of progression (its ridiculous how many we have by now - level/prestige, rank, journey level, cycle level) that would certainly work on casual play and i would not touch ranked otherwise, but you feel like you are missing out if you ignore it.
I already said to myself i wont bother getting to lv250 this cycle, i even hate the new cardback, but the draw of completing quests and building new decks is always appealing, at least to me.

How do you think summer and autumn cycles are drawing players from casual into ranked?
The tasks in the cycle require certain cards from certain card sets, which are in no way competitive against the meta.
To progress in summer cycle I had to create tailored decks and pretty much ignore the ranked progress, because the focused "play X cards from X set" is just limiting any competitive potential.

 

[saodhar]

How do you think summer and autumn cycles are drawing players from casual into ranked?
The tasks in the cycle require certain cards from certain card sets, which are in no way competitive against the meta.
To progress in summer cycle I had to create tailored decks and pretty much ignore the ranked progress, because the focused "play X cards from X set" is just limiting any competitive potential.

Because people have to play ranked matches to complete cycle quests.

 

[DRK3]

How do you think summer and autumn cycles are drawing players from casual into ranked?
The tasks in the cycle require certain cards from certain card sets, which are in no way competitive against the meta.
To progress in summer cycle I had to create tailored decks and pretty much ignore the ranked progress, because the focused "play X cards from X set" is just limiting any competitive potential.

You answered your own question.
The decks designed to complete cycle quests are probably not competitive, and players like me who didnt care much about ranked progression are OK to forsake it in order to progress on cycle but end up playing ranked rather than casual.

 

[saodhar]

Pro rank is plagued by cloned decks, but that's not the worst thing. Why are all the players there so fraking SLOW?!

 

[Trevorzan]

and now virtually any player that plays regularly, mostly on ranked, will eventually get there. Good players will get there with anything, decent players will get there with patience and bad players will get there with metadecks.

lol. Playing for a year this game and never reached pro rank. I think level 10 is the most I have reached (Crag an Crait avatar).

 

[saodhar]

lol. Playing for a year this game and never reached pro rank. I think level 10 is the most I have reached (Crag an Crait avatar).

Definitely took me more than a year since CBT. I believe luck is also involved. Like my mom getting to rank 1 for the first time on Sunday because of her opponent forfeiting when the match just started, when she was on the 5th fragment of rank 2. TBH, she was playing NG status spamming deck I created for her but refuse to play myself,
But yes, in the last seasons before the cycle quests I was playing like 20 ranked matches per month, so I was hanging around ranks 5-4.