Scissors, Rock and Paper

[EduFerraz]

I always heard that, in theory, in gwent its possible to win and lose with every deck, of course in some matches some decks are favorable than others, but, like i said, in theory you have chances to win.

I play gwent for almost one and half year and i know its noot to much but its not too little too.

But in all this time its the first time its seems i am playing Scissors, Rock and Paper. I mean when the game starts i see the opponent leader and i see my i already know who will win and who will lost.

And seems everyone is having the same feeling, since a lot of matches my opponents just forfeit in the beggening of the match (unranked here).

So whats going on with this game? I never see one seasonal so boring like this one.

Have you guys feeling the same thing?

 

[jed9653]

When playing a homebrewed spies deck, I've had people forfeit right off the bat without even playing a card in ranked no less. I don't feel it's necessarily rock, paper, scissors, but am definitely seeing less variety this time around, even after letting myself drop in rank from barely playing last season.

 

[starrzz]

In my very humble opinion of a rank3-sub2500 average joe, currently we have maybe the most binary, narrow and power crept meta ever. I think Gwent expansions should be called "compressions" because they expand nothing but rather continuously compress the meta into a smaller number of playable decks. And only playable in favorable matchups or with very very favorable draws.

I used to play a few games everyday. Now, I reluctantly launch the game maybe 2-3 times a week. And whenever I finish a game, I ask myself what the hell am I doing here. 9 times out of 10, I either steamroll or get steamrolled. If only the winners don't throw, the losing side almost never has a chance no matter what they do.

Moreover, there are only about 100 cards in this game that are relevant to how it's played. Others are mostly unplayable. I have zero understanding of this design philosophy other than how it might or might not boost the sales. Don't they feel like their work is being wasted when they create a bunch of cards that will become completely irrelevant once the next bunch of cards drop? All that work that went into designing the witcher packages, the clog, the warriors, the movement, the traps, even the recent relics, etc. These archetypes are completely unplayable now. Some survive for but a month. Some hardly ever were playable, like the dwarves (speaking the last 2 years). Or never, like the pirates.

I know changing all this would require a lot of resources, maybe even changing the game itself, but in my opinion that's what they gotta do. Unless Gwent shifts heavily into gameplay based on meaningful decisions, and spends way more resources on researching meta and play-testing (not just data analysis), balancing the whole roster of cards (not just a chosen few) and many different archetypes (not just the three or four the boss wrote in red on the conference room whiteboard), I gotta say goodbye. I know many people feel like this, too. I say it with sadness because I still have respect for the whole of Gwent legacy, but at this point, I would not recommend this game to anyone.

 

[EduFerraz]

In my very humble opinion of a rank3-sub2500 average joe, currently we have maybe the most binary, narrow and power crept meta ever. I think Gwent expansions should be called "compressions" because they expand nothing but rather continuously compress the meta into a smaller number of playable decks. And only playable in favorable matchups or with very very favorable draws.

I used to play a few games everyday. Now, I reluctantly launch the game maybe 2-3 times a week. And whenever I finish a game, I ask myself what the hell am I doing here. 9 times out of 10, I either steamroll or get steamrolled. If only the winners don't throw, the losing side almost never has a chance no matter what they do.

Moreover, there are only about 100 cards in this game that are relevant to how it's played. Others are mostly unplayable. I have zero understanding of this design philosophy other than how it might or might not boost the sales. Don't they feel like their work is being wasted when they create a bunch of cards that will become completely irrelevant once the next bunch of cards drop? All that work that went into designing the witcher packages, the clog, the warriors, the movement, the traps, even the recent relics, etc. These archetypes are completely unplayable now. Some survive for but a month. Some hardly ever were playable, like the dwarves (speaking the last 2 years). Or never, like the pirates.

I know changing all this would require a lot of resources, maybe even changing the game itself, but in my opinion that's what they gotta do. Unless Gwent shifts heavily into gameplay based on meaningful decisions, and spends way more resources on researching meta and play-testing (not just data analysis), balancing the whole roster of cards (not just a chosen few) and many different archetypes (not just the three or four the boss wrote in red on the conference room whiteboard), I gotta say goodbye. I know many people feel like this, too. I say it with sadness because I still have respect for the whole of Gwent legacy, but at this point, I would not recommend this game to anyone.

The first part of your post its what i am feeliing now.

I played gwent a lot just for fun, now i enter in the game, try to do some dayly quests and thats it. Sometimes i dont even complete the quests.

This last expansion its so boring. Separate the POP in 3 parts was a huge error and i pray for devs dont do that anymore, or, at least, as bush said in his video, make diferent archtetypes in the mini expansions.


And its funny, every stream i watch, players are talking for the same thing, no one is happy with this meta to "kill or die".