Scenario's, heatwave, echo cards and devotion should be top priority next patch

+
was? How is it not binary now? Heatwave is still there. This is poison all over again, instead of addressing the issue they throw in something else that doesn't address the root cause. They can't remove Heatwave because scenarios are too powerful so the game is now binary, you either have it and win or you don't and lose (unless your SK or NR for obvious reasons)...Every broken mechanic in the game at the moment was the devs own doing and on some level incompetence. They don't appear to be learning from any of their previous decisions.
The situation is significantly less toxic than before.
That being said, I agree that Shupe should lose the artifact removal option (even if it is sh**), as well as heatwave losing the artifact removal capabilities, after that Scenarios have to be balanced around being unanswerable and the only way I see for that would be to redesign them with lower provision costs and lower ceilings, even if they spawn only 4-5p bronze cards, those are already insane enough as is, if you multiply their power by 3.

They could also make Scenarios immediately spawn their main plays and have an own engine capability (similar to the Mystic Echo replacement, having Symbiosis) with 1-2, maybe always 2 points if you do what currently triggers their chapters.
The flaw is that Scenarios right now are super low initial tempo, so they give them a large potential, that design is on its own already flawed by necessitating a high ceiling.

E.G.:
______________________________________________________________________________________

Siege: 11 (12?) provisions
Deploy: Spawn a Reinforced Trebuchet and a Reinforced Ballista in your Ranged Row, then damage them by 1
Chapter 1: Give 1 charge to a random Siege Engine that a charge can be given to
Chapter 2: Inflict 1 damage to a random enemy unit

Trigger Chapter 1 every time you play a Siege Engine
Trigger Chapter 2 every time you play a Siege Engine, unless Chapter 1 was triggered the first time

Doomed

______________________________________________________________________________________

I.e. Chapter 1 will always trigger, while Chapter 2 will trigger from the second Siege Engine onwards.
This way Siege would incentivize to play more Siege Engines and scales up with them, while still not easily giving the value of 3 bronze cards, yet not being all too slow.
In this case I would say that this would reflect the Scenario of a Siege much better than the Scenario does now.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4375874

Guest
The situation is significantly less toxic than before.
That being said, I agree that Shupe should lose the artifact removal option (even if it is sh**), as well as heatwave losing the artifact removal capabilities, after that Scenarios have to be balanced around being unanswerable and the only way I see for that would be to redesign them with lower provision costs and lower ceilings, even if they spawn only 4-5p bronze cards, those are already insane enough as is, if you multiply their power by 3.

They could also make Scenarios immediately spawn their main plays and have an own engine capability (similar to the Mystic Echo replacement, having Symbiosis) with 1-2, maybe always 2 points if you do what currently triggers their chapters.
The flaw is that Scenarios right now are super low initial tempo, so they give them a large potential, that design is on its own already flawed by necessitating a high ceiling.

E.G.:
______________________________________________________________________________________

Siege: 11 (12?) provisions
Deploy: Spawn a Reinforced Trebuchet and a Reinforced Ballista in your Ranged Row, then damage them by 1
Chapter 1: Give 1 charge to a random Siege Engine that a charge can be given to
Chapter 2: Inflict 1 damage to a random enemy unit

Trigger Chapter 1 every time you play a Siege Engine
Trigger Chapter 2 every time you play a Siege Engine, unless Chapter 1 was triggered the first time

Doomed

______________________________________________________________________________________

I.e. Chapter 1 will always trigger, while Chapter 2 will trigger from the second Siege Engine onwards.
This way Siege would incentivize to play more Siege Engines and scales up with them, while still not easily giving the value of 3 bronze cards, yet not being all too slow.
In this case I would say that this would reflect the Scenario of a Siege much better than the Scenario does now.
In the past I would agree with you but now with tutoring so rampant and echoes, I don't think there's anyway to balance Scenarios and they should be removed from the game. It doesn't matter how balanced you make it, if you enter R3 and both opponents draw 3 cards, one has scenario and the other doesn't... the game is already decided. No amount of balancing will fix a card like that unless you significantly weaken it at which point you're better off improving existing cards rather than trying to decide which scenarios should be nerfed more than others (because they aren't all equal)
 
I'm starting to think scenarios shouldn't spawn anything on deploy. The entire 10p (Heatwave) vs 13-15p argument falls apart because they do. A scenario creates a situation where you need to remove two cards from the board immediately, the scenario itself and the engine, and that's impossible.
Instead there should be 3 chapters. As it stands even if you remove it your opponent still gets a nice engine on board ready to boost which makes it very little risk. Cards that play for a ridiculous amount of value need to be risks.
 
I have thrown my phone 5 times THIS SEASON. I haven't given GGs in a while now coz my opponent ddnt win coz of skill but rather bc of drawing better. I can't believe this was considered one of the "best ccgs" when it is this binary. You play for stress and are rewarded with stress and my friends playing just cuss themselves out every time they play. Scenarios should have never existed. They should just remove echo effects and lower the provision cost of those cards. DRAWING GOLDS is the most important skill in Gwent.
 
Fixing few cards wont fix the game. The biggest problem is this:
- you do draw golds, you win;
- you don't, you lose.
It means the differences between strongest and weakest cards are to big and Im not the first 1 saying that.

Wild Hunt is strong, no the top tier but strong enough.

Devs will never balance this game. It's all about trinkets, leader skins, cardbacks etc
What is more profitable, patch or another journey?
Why I dont play anymore in a nutshell.
 
I'm starting to think scenarios shouldn't spawn anything on deploy. The entire 10p (Heatwave) vs 13-15p argument falls apart because they do. A scenario creates a situation where you need to remove two cards from the board immediately, the scenario itself and the engine, and that's impossible.
Instead there should be 3 chapters. As it stands even if you remove it your opponent still gets a nice engine on board ready to boost which makes it very little risk. Cards that play for a ridiculous amount of value need to be risks.
This is pretty much the way I'd handle it too - instead of Prologues automatically spawning the initial unit, they should only spawn the Scenario artifact itself, without any effect on the board. This would then be followed up by 3 chapters, each spawning the respective unit/effect, as it is today. Yes, this would render them slower and greatly increase the risk of getting Heatwaved for zero benefit - but would put them in a much more aceptable spot in terms of risk/reward.
Post automatically merged:

I have thrown my phone 5 times THIS SEASON. I haven't given GGs in a while now coz my opponent ddnt win coz of skill but rather bc of drawing better. I can't believe this was considered one of the "best ccgs" when it is this binary. You play for stress and are rewarded with stress and my friends playing just cuss themselves out every time they play. Scenarios should have never existed. They should just remove echo effects and lower the provision cost of those cards. DRAWING GOLDS is the most important skill in Gwent.
You typically sound like a person who should stop playing and stay away from the game for a good while. For your own sake.
You are clearly past the point where you can make objective assumptions or can see the game without a serious negative bias. You should never play a game (or do anything specific in your life) if it comes purely out of stress and end up with you getting even more stressed. I'd even consider playing CCG-s in total are not a thing for you - I've been playing various CCGs on relatively high level in the past 5 years, and I can safely say, this sort of binary element is or was present in each at some point. The fact that we are talking about CARD GAMES to begin with is already a warning sign.
 
Last edited:
This is pretty much the way I'd handle it too - instead of Prologues automatically spawning the initial unit, they should only spawn the Scenario artifact itself, without any effect on the board. This would then be followed up by 3 chapters, each spawning the respective unit/effect, as it is today. Yes, this would render them slower and greatly increase the risk of getting Heatwaved for zero benefit - but would put them in a much more aceptable spot in terms of risk/reward.
Post automatically merged:


You typically sound like a person who should stop playing and stay away from the game for a good while. For your own sake.
You are clearly past the point where you can make objective assumptions or can see the game without a serious negative bias. You should never play a game (or do anything specific in your life) if it comes purely out of stress and end up with you getting even more stressed. I'd even consider playing CCG-s in total are not a thing for you - I've been playing various CCGs on relatively high level in the past 5 years, and I can safely say, this sort of binary element is or was present in each at some point. The fact that we are talking about CARD GAMES to begin with is already a warning sign.

I too, have been playing various CCGs competitively for many years but never have I gotten as tilted the way Gwent does.
Yes, card games generally has this binary element but not as punishing as it is in this game and to think it has this much mulligans in only a 25 card deck makes it dumber.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
This is pretty much the way I'd handle it too - instead of Prologues automatically spawning the initial unit, they should only spawn the Scenario artifact itself, without any effect on the board. This would then be followed up by 3 chapters, each spawning the respective unit/effect, as it is today. Yes, this would render them slower and greatly increase the risk of getting Heatwaved for zero benefit - but would put them in a much more aceptable spot in terms of risk/reward.
Post automatically merged:

That's still very binary. You either have an answer and win or you don't and lose.

If scenarios can't be removed then they should require setup.
1. They shouldn't be cards but instead an effect, similar to how the new Adrenaline mechanic works
2. Require specific cards or maybe certain tags needing to be on the board/graveyard to trigger or summon the scenario
3. Your opponent can either try to disrupt your scenario by targeting the cards on the row/graveyard that they know you need (in which case the board still remains pretty even, less point swing) or they can focus on setting up their own. Scenarios should be tools to build a strategy, not a win condition in the way that they have become.
 
Today one of my opponents played Oneiromancy to draw Amphibious Assault in the first round so he/she was able to draw 2 cards in the second round. The intention obviously was to pick 4 cards. :sad:
Those Echo cards are so absurd. I mean you can argue about balancing, which is not good, but drawing several cards of your choice is so wrong, for a card game.
 
Today one of my opponents played Oneiromancy to draw Amphibious Assault in the first round so he/she was able to draw 2 cards in the second round. The intention obviously was to pick 4 cards. :sad:
Those Echo cards are so absurd. I mean you can argue about balancing, which is not good, but drawing several cards of your choice is so wrong, for a card game.
I believe you are aware of the loud crowd chanting "BEST SKILL IN GWENT IS DRAWING YOUR GOLDS"!
Funny, as these cards are doing exactly that: helping to smooth out that curve by granting less binary randomness to most games. This is the tpyical example where it clearly shows how you cannot really satisfy everyone (or rather, anyone).
 
I believe you are aware of the loud crowd chanting "BEST SKILL IN GWENT IS DRAWING YOUR GOLDS"!
Funny, as these cards are doing exactly that: helping to smooth out that curve by granting less binary randomness to most games. This is the tpyical example where it clearly shows how you cannot really satisfy everyone (or rather, anyone).
You state this as though the positions that there is too much tutoring and that there is too much skill-less RNG are inconsistent. Reconsider this assumption!

Not drawing golds is only disastrous when the difference between bronze and gold cards is too great. Too much tutoring, by reducing the risk of not drawing top value cards actually increases the value of those cards, and reduces good RNG - the randomness of different limited selections of available cards that forces strategic adaptation. The root of both problems is the massive differences in card values.
 
You state this as though the positions that there is too much tutoring and that there is too much skill-less RNG are inconsistent. Reconsider this assumption!

Not drawing golds is only disastrous when the difference between bronze and gold cards is too great. Too much tutoring, by reducing the risk of not drawing top value cards actually increases the value of those cards, and reduces good RNG - the randomness of different limited selections of available cards that forces strategic adaptation. The root of both problems is the massive differences in card values.
Right, take another example in this case, Skellige warriors, with an excellent, synergistic bronze package capable of competing with golds if played right. Did you see much praise for them (other than that 90% of the community openly or secretly expoited them where possible)? On the contrary, one of the common complaints was that these bronzes were too powerful (when played against ofc).

I'd like to draw the attention to the fact that this game is, after all, a card game. There needs to be significant difference between a good draw and a bad draw - without this aspect, you take away the tension and the random elements that actually do pull people into these game types. I can only list a select few card games that are actually lot less rng and way more strategy based - and there is a good reason we are having this discussion here, and not on those game's forums. ;)

On the other hand, this same randomness will be the eternal factor that drives the losing side into a hissy rage - be it any of the competitve titles on the market. Just hit up the forum over at any of the market leader CCGs - I can guarantee you that you'll run into the exact same complaints and discussions ad infinitum.
 
Right, take another example in this case, Skellige warriors, with an excellent, synergistic bronze package capable of competing with golds if played right. Did you see much praise for them (other than that 90% of the community openly or secretly expoited them where possible)? On the contrary, one of the common complaints was that these bronzes were too powerful (when played against ofc).

I'd like to draw the attention to the fact that this game is, after all, a card game. There needs to be significant difference between a good draw and a bad draw - without this aspect, you take away the tension and the random elements that actually do pull people into these game types. I can only list a select few card games that are actually lot less rng and way more strategy based - and there is a good reason we are having this discussion here, and not on those game's forums. ;)

On the other hand, this same randomness will be the eternal factor that drives the losing side into a hissy rage - be it any of the competitve titles on the market. Just hit up the forum over at any of the market leader CCGs - I can guarantee you that you'll run into the exact same complaints and discussions ad infinitum.
On this example
1. Some Skellige bronzes (e.g. Greatswords) would be gold cards in any other faction.
2. The real problem here is not SK bronzes “ competing” with other faction’s golds, it’s that other factions do not have equivalent bronze cards to compete (this may not be true of monsters).
3. In fact, SK bronze rarely successfully compete alone in round one. At the very least they draw upon the overly abundant echo tutors to insure the needed bronze cards are available without sacrificing later hand quality.

There does not need to be an overwhelming difference between good draws and bad draws in a card game. It is absurd that most top level matches are decided by who has the most undrawn gold cards in their deck at the end rather than by skill. No, for a card game, the draw needs to actually affect play. Excessive tutoring makes draw irrelevant as tutors are used to play the desired card irrespective of the draw. Duplicate bridge is an excellent competitive card game because elements of luck are essentially removed while variety from different hands is not diminished.
 
I believe you are aware of the loud crowd chanting "BEST SKILL IN GWENT IS DRAWING YOUR GOLDS"!
Funny, as these cards are doing exactly that: helping to smooth out that curve by granting less binary randomness to most games. This is the tpyical example where it clearly shows how you cannot really satisfy everyone (or rather, anyone).
I used to be very anti Oneiro when it was first launched, this is because I consider the RNG factor very important in CCGs. But I've since reconsidered my stance. As you say it smooths out the RNG for people who don't like to gamble, as long as it comes at a cost this is a fine option to have for people who play it safe.
When I think it becomes an issue is with cards like Amphibious Assault or Blood Eagle. By their own they bring absurd amounts of value, AA in particular can bring 12 points to the table whenever the player so wishes, but it also serves as a consistency tool. These can also be chain tutored.
At that point they are no longer a sacrifice. The consistency is free.
So when Richard complains about those echos I think he has good reason to. Tutors shouldn't bring extreme amounts of value by themselves, for then the gambler has nothing to gain by playing it unsafe.
I hope this made sense.
 
When I think it becomes an issue is with cards like Amphibious Assault or Blood Eagle. By their own they bring absurd amounts of value, AA in particular can bring 12 points to the table whenever the player so wishes, but it also serves as a consistency tool. These can also be chain tutored.
At that point they are no longer a sacrifice. The consistency is free.
I fully agree. The effects of these two tutors are simply overpowered. I tend to restrain myself from using this term where possible, but in the case of these two, it is justified. The fact that Blood Eagle can pull technically any warrior and AA can bring any low value unit to the power level of a 9prov play IN ADDITION to providing on-demand play of actual 7-9 prov cards, that is too much. Provision nerfs don't make much sense here, I believe both cards should simply have a stricter cap on what they can actually pull. The only problem with this is that these tools are more or less designed to be overpowered in order to support Devotion decklists - both are meant to be the "Oneiro on steroids" for their respective faction to boost those archetypes.

There does not need to be an overwhelming difference between good draws and bad draws in a card game. It is absurd that most top level matches are decided by who has the most undrawn gold cards in their deck at the end rather than by skill.
You know, this is subjective to one's preferences. I wouldn't underestimate the subconscious pull of gambling when it comes to the popularity of CCGs. On the outside, it might seem that massive amounts of players aren't satisfied with the "gambling-aspect", and that is because everyone who ever gets on the receiving side of bad luck feels terrible. Yet, I'm positive, the same people don't necessarily come to forums to raise their frustration after a winning streak thanks to good luck ;)
There tend to be a sort of negative opinion around these parts when it comes to Hearthstone for example and it's huge dependancy on RNG - yet, one cannot deny the absolute success of that formula when it comes to the sheer amount of players who roll the dice again and again. Now, I also prefer Gwent to HS when it comes to it's mechanics and the significantly lower amount of RNG - yet, I'm not sure I'd prefer a card game that more closely resembles chess than what we have now.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4375874

Guest
I used to be very anti Oneiro when it was first launched, this is because I consider the RNG factor very important in CCGs. But I've since reconsidered my stance. As you say it smooths out the RNG for people who don't like to gamble, as long as it comes at a cost this is a fine option to have for people who play it safe.
When I think it becomes an issue is with cards like Amphibious Assault or Blood Eagle. By their own they bring absurd amounts of value, AA in particular can bring 12 points to the table whenever the player so wishes, but it also serves as a consistency tool. These can also be chain tutored.
At that point they are no longer a sacrifice. The consistency is free.
So when Richard complains about those echos I think he has good reason to. Tutors shouldn't bring extreme amounts of value by themselves, for then the gambler has nothing to gain by playing it unsafe.
I hope this made sense.
I'm still against Oneiro. RNG is important but RNG doesn't equate to binary play. A part of the issue as mentioned above is the value between cards. If we both draw and you get a better hand it shouldn't mean you automatically win that round but that's exactly how the game is now. I don't think Tutors help because my opponent could draw better than I do but there's no guarantee I will draw Oneiro, in fact my opponent might have pulled his. If the game was such that, If I drew less golds than my opponent then I'm allowed to exchange a card for a tutor or Oneiro then maybe but even that is questionable. There's just too huge a difference between the value of faction cards.

Someone mentioned MO being an exception above and that's a good, bad example. Take Greatsword vs Aen Elle Conqueror, I'm sure the argument is Aen Elle plays for an immediate 7 but unless Greatsword is straight up destroyed any damage it takes it recovers because it has crazy synergy. That card would be a gold in any other faction as someone mentioned. And any 5 for 8 unit in MO has hard a condition or requires building your deck and leader around it to even work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone mentioned MO being an exception above and that's good, bad example. Take Greatsword vs Aen Elle Conqueror, I'm sure the argument is Aen Elle plays for an immediate 7 but unless Greatsword is straight up destroyed any damage it takes it recovers because it has crazy synergy. That card would be a gold in any other faction as someone mentioned. And any 5 for 8 unit in MO has hard a condition or requires building your deck and leader around it to even work.
Except that Aen Elle Conqueror is a guaranteed 7 for 4 whose high power helps with Thrive and Boosting Ghoul, whereas An Craite Greatsword is a 6-Provision unit that can easily be removed before it reaches its base value of 10. If you want to ignore that cards can be removed before reaching insane values, then take a look at some of the 4-Provision Thrive units in Monsters; both Nekker and Bruxa can easily play for 10 or more points if they aren't killed. And Endrega Larva, at 5 Provisions, doesn't even have much risk of removal; it's basically guaranteed to play for at least 10 points in a long round. Plus Monsters has the best thinning units in the game: Wild Hunt Rider is the only thinning unit that can be played on an open field, with no setup, and Foglet is basically a 7 for 4 (because the Consume costs something) that also thins one's deck, making it another one of the best 4-Provision units in the game. Even if you ignore the units that require actual setup, like Deathwish and Consume, Monsters has some of the best Bronzes in the game. Both Monsters and Skellige have contributed to many of my easiest wins over the last few months using non-meta decks in both Casual and Seasonal.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
Except that Aen Elle Conqueror is a guaranteed 7 for 4 whose high power helps with Thrive and Boosting Ghoul, whereas An Craite Greatsword is a 6-Provision unit that can easily be removed before it reaches its base value of 10. If you want to ignore that cards can be removed before reaching insane values, then take a look at some of the 4-Provision Thrive units in Monsters; both Nekker and Bruxa can easily play for 10 or more points if they aren't killed. And Endrega Larva, at 5 Provisions, doesn't even have much risk of removal; it's basically guaranteed to play for at least 10 points in a long round. Plus Monsters has the best thinning units in the game: Wild Hunt Rider is the only thinning unit that can be played on an open field, with no setup, and Foglet is basically a 7 for 4 (because the Consume costs something) that also thins one's deck, making it another one of the best 4-Provision units in the game. Even if you ignore the units that require actual setup, like Deathwish and Consume, Monsters has some of the best Bronzes in the game. Both Monsters and Skellige have contributed to many of my easiest wins over the last few months using non-meta decks in both Casual and Seasonal.
Any other faction would gladly trade the synergy for supposed guaranteed points. Thrive is useless on it's own and in short rounds whereas SK bronze cards are mostly auto activated and require little to no interaction. I'll take that over thrive.
 
And in a long round I would take thrive. Cards comparing unfavorably under unfavorable conditions is no surprise.
 
Am just a beginner (MO) so may not have my facts right, apologies if so.
Re Heatwave and 'It's very frustrating to see this card in every single match at higher ranks/pro rank. '
Looking at a couple of meta websites, the top 2/3 decks do not play a scenario or Heatwave, for whatever reason, so it's possible to create the best version of a faction deck without them.
If the best deck from each faction was running them, then that would suggest scenario should be reined in, and each faction should rely more on their best mechanics, rather than a general one.

Even at my rank it's frustrating coming across Haunt and Heatwave, say.
If you can't remove the scenario you may have a chance of removing a spawned card later, but that probably still leaves 10+ points on the board.
Sounds like a scenario should have a lower total output and provisions to match. i.e. to make it less of a points swing.
 
Top Bottom