Soo Monsters are terrible now...

[ValhallasChosen]

Soo Monsters are terrible now...

Hey all,

Was away from the game for a while, and decided to jump back in with the last big patch. Tried out some arena and then wanted to play some ranked to see how things were shaping up...

Is it just me or are Monsters just absolutely terrible now. It seems like they have parts and pieces for a bunch of different metas (weather, consume, deathwish, vampires, wild hunt, draconids. and so on) but not nearly enough support in any of the different archetypes to make a competitive deck.

Seriously disappointed to see that none of the decks I used to play are even remotely usable anymore.

anyone else having problems getting a solid deck together?

 

[OG.laloquaint]

There's still solid decks in Monsters. Deathwish is one of them, the best in my opinion. Wild Hunt is not exactly amazing, but you can make it work. There's always consume too. You can't really expect a deck from months ago to still work in a game where cards have changed drastically since last year tbh.

 

[Void_Singer]

Nekker consume is still tier 1, if deathwish isn't, it's close. Frost and Fog are doing pretty well too.

 

[NomanPeopled]

Deathwish did well in the Gwent Open. Haven't yet watched it myself but appearently only one Deathwish deck lost a match against something other than Deathwish.
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...aa/10689711-reflection-on-the-past-gwent-open

 

[devivre]

Well, Deathwish definitely can get you to rank 21 and consume is still insanely annoying. So Monsters do have at least two strong archetypes.

 

[Bondonkadonk]

Monsters isn't the best faction out there right now, but they definitely aren't terrible. Like others have pointed out, deathwish has been doing extremely way in ranked, both the standard and the nova version. I've not personally seen any consume around but it's been strong for several seasons just because it's snowball effect, and moonlight has been doing well too. There's multiple streamers who play both moonlight and deathwish decks to high success, and monsters had their moment in the Open too. :3

If you've been away a while, it's possible you just aren't familiar with the newer archetypes. For instance moonlight kinda seems terrible when you just look at the cards, but thanks to barely anyone removing boons, it can get very strong very quickly. Deathwish is the same, kinda looks mediocre and unfinished, but when played right it's devastating. Even unseen elder as a leader seems kinda terrible, and has been considered so for a while, but people have started to realise his use and he's been popping up more. There's definitely room for improvement though and I believe CDPR are working on developing each archetype more.

 

[Ic3Purple]

and monsters had their moment in the Open too. :3

I was so excited to see what Gwent Open was about. The show itself was not bad...but... It ended up being a boredom. Always the same 4-5 archetypes in every match! WTF?

Bears, Cultist, Alchemy, Deathwish, Henselt (Some Brower garbage at times), and the same crap over and over and over...

Disappointed.

 

[NomanPeopled]

Have you seen top level tournaments of other CCGs?

4-5 archetypes is par for the course and pretty good considering Gwent's extremely limited card pool.

 

[Bondonkadonk]

I was so excited to see what Gwent Open was about. The show itself was not bad...but... It ended up being a boredom. Always the same 4-5 archetypes in every match! WTF?

Bears, Cultist, Alchemy, Deathwish, Henselt (Some Brower garbage at times), and the same crap over and over and over...

Disappointed.

Yeah, not sure exactly sure what you were expecting. They only get a choice of one archetype per faction so of course they're going to pick the stronger ones, I actually find it interesting to see what each pro does to tweak their decks towards their own playstyle and expectations. Most Tournaments for card games are similar, there will always be a meta, even in a well balanced game, there will be something that stands out. Seeing the same decks doesn't really bore me personally when you get to see how they approach it and how they bait one another or expect certain plays, it's still an interesting thing to watch.

(also not entirely sure what your reply had to do with the original topic, but still. xD)

 

[Ic3Purple]

Yeah, not sure exactly sure what you were expecting. They only get a choice of one archetype per faction so of course they're going to pick the stronger ones, I actually find it interesting to see what each pro does to tweak their decks towards their own playstyle and expectations. Most Tournaments for card games are similar, there will always be a meta, even in a well balanced game, there will be something that stands out. Seeing the same decks doesn't really bore me personally when you get to see how they approach it and how they bait one another or expect certain plays, it's still an interesting thing to watch.

(also not entirely sure what your reply had to do with the original topic, but still. xD)

I was expecting a variety of decks? Wasn't that clear? Yes, it is interesting watching it for 1 our. The problem is that each video is about 5 to 6 hours, and if you think that watching it all you will see some more... You will find out that it is like watching a REPLAY of the first our all the time being. I doubt you went beyond the half our considering the way you answered.

I don't know your rank, but My highest rank in Gwent is 4100 MMR in 3 months of playing, and I was wondering which were the decks on the highest rank. Well, they are the same u see from 15 until 20, and now I find out even at the top is the same, whit just a couple of different cards int he archetypes if none.

SO? What about monsters? Where was Moonlight? Where was Consume? And some nerd comes to this forum also saying that Wild Hunt isn't dead, that doesn't need changes or buffs because there is ONE guy playing it at 4k MMR LOL. Where were the other monster leaders?

I don't find it normal that these so-called PRO players just play the same decks at lower ranks. It means the game has serious problems, but moreover that these players suck. If the game was a little skill based, they could win with what they like to play, not what is best on paper. But that card games are just about luck, I knew that already, but I was saving the hope I was wrong at a certain level of "pro-play" (LOL).

 

[Void_Singer]

[...]
I don't find it normal that these so-called PRO players just play the same decks at lower ranks. It means the game has serious problems, but moreover that these players suck.

funny but I draw the exact opposite conclusions from this... the decks are the same because people will always copy the most powerful things going. these players don't just float randomly to the top, they tend to stick there, which means they are better pilots of these decks... whether that's due to a better strategy of use, or better anticipation of their opponents, it would be hard to say

If the game was a little skill based, they could win with what they like to play, not what is best on paper. But that card games are just about luck, I knew that already, but I was saving the hope I was wrong at a certain level of "pro-play" (LOL).

again I have the exact opposite conclusion. It's undeniable fact that all cards (and decks) are not equal. so if two players of equal skill meet, the one with the superior cards will win. that means if they could "win with what they like to play" it would rule out skill, and be all about luck.

 

[Bondonkadonk]

Ic3Purple I don't personally agree, but to each their own. You tend to see so much of the "pro" decks throughout the ranks because people see a pro play said deck and think "this person made it to top 50 with this deck, it MUST be good" and yet can't climb with it. That to me suggests there's plenty of skill. You could give a rank 20 player the EXACT same deck as one of the Open players and I bet you the pro would clean them out almost every single time. It's precisely why people frequently get stuck in the same rank, because they're exactly where they need to be, no matter how meta their deck is.

If you honestly think the pros in the gwent open "suck" then that's your opinion and you're obviously allowed to have it. But hey, if you're so much better than them, I'd suggest trying out for the next tournament, it's damn good prize money and if they rest of these guys suck, you should have no problem winning. Good luck to you. :3

 

[Ic3Purple]

I think you not entirely getting my point. The OP says monsters are in the terrible state, yes they are! But there is more, it is not only monsters, as I see it, NG and NR as well most of all. My complaint about top players isn't only about skill and luck (which is my personal opinion by the way), but because these people also define the trend of archetypes.

So, they showed on the event that currently there are 4-5 archetypes in a game that possibly could have 20-30 or more. While we argue that other archetypes are also very good bla bla bla, these nerds don't even dare? LOL. So why? Why none of them picked any of the others archetypes potentially good? That's why I say they SUCK!

Again, If these people are the so-called genius of the game, why are they limited to a few options? If they are so great, why can't they show it playing something that is not top rated by themselves? We can argue that it is a competition, and you do what it is necessary to win, but that this just contribute to give credits to my rant.

However, I can't blame only top players for featuring just what is convenient, but most of all who makes the game.

The topic has the purpose to debate, so be it.

 

[Khreygond]

To have 3 really viable archetypes, they all need to perform at the same level as the top of each faction. Right now Monsters have 1 to 2, NG and NR 1 each, Skellige has 3, Scoia'Tael has 1 to 2. That will take a lot of work.

What lc3Purple is basically saying is that there should be a bit more variation in the game. If each faction had the same number of viable archetypes Skellige has, then every faction would be a possibility and in the Open, and every subsequent tournament, we would see the same variation. One guy would bring consume, another deathwish, another moonlight, another would run the version of consume that is not greedy, there could be armor, machines, from NG it could be Reveal, Spies and Alchemy, etc. That will make tournaments a lot more interesting.

At least that's how I understand his position and it will take a while to get there

 

[NomanPeopled]

So, they showed on the event that currently there are 4-5 archetypes in a game that possibly could have 20-30 or more.

Let's go with 20. All with different pacing, sequencing, power output, and consistency.
For 20 archetypes to be similarly viable at the top (or at any level), a total of 190 matchups would have to be balanced to close to 50%, player skills being equal (however that's supposed to be measured).
And that's ignoring any variants.

Setting aside my opinion to what extent that's desireable, I don't see how that's even doable.

Again, If these people are the so-called genius of the game, why are they limited to a few options? If they are so great, why can't they show it playing something that is not top rated by themselves?

Being a good player allows you to take advantage of the properties of a system, not ignore them.
There's always less variety at the higher levels, not more. The advantages of some decks over others only get more pronounced with skill.

I certainly wouldn't mind a few more playable top-level archetypes myself. I'm just somewhat surprised why you would expect more variety at the top of all places. Looking at similar (and even quite different) games, I think it's more realistic to expect less.

 

[Sunsibar]

Are we still talking about Monster decks? Or Gwent tournaments? Or pro players?

Topic of this thread is the first one.

 

[BlunderMan]

I got to rank 19 playing a moonlight deck. Really, I'm surprised more people aren't playing it.

 

[Ic3Purple]

I got to rank 19 playing a moonlight deck. Really, I'm surprised more people aren't playing it.

This season almost none. If you meet monster a few times, it's always Deathwish. I got up to R20 past season with Moonlight, but this one couldn't get above 18. So I switched to consume 2 days ago, and finally got R20 with a decent win rate. But above 3900 mmr, I met decks that run too many hard removals... I'm thinking of tweaking it a bit but I don't have good feelings it is going to improve that much.

Even though on paper and ranks Deathwish is the aechetype of this seasons for monsters, I just don't like it. it's boring, and so I stick with what's my preferences rather convenience.

 

[ArticFennec]

I'm a relatively new player but I've won more often with my monster deck than any others I have. So either they're not that bad or I'm just terrible at deck building, both have a good chance of being true

 

[rrc]

Monster is the weakest faction. I started playing Gwent with Monster weather deck. I comfortably won and got around 2600-2700 mmr points. But beyond that, it was just impossible to progress. I briefly tried consume/deathwish decks (I was and am still a noob and may be missing something), Eredin Biting Forest deck, but was just beaten by anyone and everyone. I switched to ST (with Franchessa) and I could progress, of course with difficulty, now I am at 3100 points. Even now, I hardly get any Monster opponents and if I get one, most of the times I win.