Stop Restricting my Deck Options

[hachri80]

On Spring Equinox you claim no one uses it because it's garbage.

Now hold on just a minute! I've seen the crime faction deploy a defender - two scarab beetles as defenders. Spring Equinox can defeat that defender with ease (and all others), yet you claim it's garbage?

I'd say it is garbage because it's a zero point card. Even in the situation described it "only" deals with the defender status enabling you to attack the other cards again. While this can be a good thing it is still zero points. And then there are all the other games where Pellar is just so much better. If you don't need the purify at all the card is terrible like card disadvantage. And I honestly can say that I never saw it in action.

 

[Draconifors]

If you are here to attempt to prove your opinion is superior to others', please do not. Respect others' opinions, as per the Rules, or don't post at all.

I am starting to see signs of ridicule here, hence this reminder.

 

[Iuliandrei]

On Spring Equinox you claim no one uses it because it's garbage.

Now hold on just a minute! I've seen the crime faction (Syndicate) deploy a Defender - two scarab beetles as defenders. Spring Equinox can defeat that defender with ease (and all others), yet you claim it's garbage?

Are you using Spring Equinox in any of your decks?

For me, it's quite plain that there are sufficient means to defeat defenders and artefacts, but players are making an active choice *not* to include such cards in their decks because they don't see any value in them and consider them to be 'garbage'. Is the issue, therefore, with the Defender or artefact, or with player mentality and willingness, lack thereof, to play certain cards. I submit that the real problem is the latter.

None of the best decks right now use Spring Equinox or other cards you mentioned and i'm fairly sure that including these cards would only decrease their winrate.

 

[hachri80]

I agree with you that defenders are not really problematic and I don't think they should be nerfed. I don't play them often because I don't think they are that strong. The mechanic is fine because there are a lot of ways to deal with them. Sometimes you can't and will lose but that's the way this game works.

But I'd say that including Spring Equinox to your deck will make you lose many games. I would say that it is almost impossible to reach pro rank if you run it (this thesis might be bold and I can't prove it but you get my point I guess).

 

[StrykerS77]

On weather, you've made your point and position clear. I get the distinct impression you don't care for weather related strategy and don't want to have to deal with the mechanic. Sadly, it appears that CDPR is with you and others of your player type on the issue. For us who want a deeper type of strategy with more complex mechanics, I guess we'll have to keep on hoping.

Wait didn't you never play back when weather was good? If not then shouldn't you be asking people who did play back then if it made the game deeper or not? Whether or not it made the game deeper or more strategic is debatable. It might depend on what point of time we are talking about because weather went through a lot of different iterations and changes. What I do know is the devs struggled a lot with weather and eventually gave up. So if they aren't going to go through the effort to make it work (which would take a lot of work) then no I definitely don't want them to start buffing weather again. We already have enough issues with artifacts. Can you imagine playing this game and having to tech artifact removal and weather clear? That sounds horrible. It's super binary design.

On Spring Equinox you claim no one uses it because it's garbage.

Now hold on just a minute! I've seen the crime faction (Syndicate) deploy a Defender - two scarab beetles as defenders. Spring Equinox can defeat that defender with ease (and all others), yet you claim it's garbage?

Yeah. Equinox is so bad no one uses it even for that. Also the syndicate defender was nerfed recently and not as big of a problem as before. No way I would put something as bad as equinox into a deck just for that.

Here we have a 4 point card capable of defeating the very issue some are whining about - cards that are 9 plus provisions - and it the claim is it's garbage and doesn't get played! Something seems wrong here. I don't think that the problem is with the card, but is more likely an issue with player mentality - who demand they can use card slots and provisions on the type of cards *they* want, what *they* consider good and useful. If it doesn't fit their expectations - despite it doing what it says on the tin - they won't accept it.

Sorry man the card is really really bad. It puts no points on the board at all. I can't think of a single time it has had a legitimate use in the game since it was revealed. No one playing remotely competitively uses it. There are going to be better options than a card that is a zero point play much of the time that you play it. If you don't agree then put two of them in a deck and come play me in some friendly matches.

Honestly, if I were a developer reading this type of thread, I'd simply state that 'there are sufficient counters to some of these IMAGINARY problems - the 4 provision Spring Equinox card being one - go play them and stop being selfish and silly. We didn't create and include cards like Spring Equinox for them never to be used. We want players to use them against defenders and the like. Au revoir!'.

Then they should buff Spring Equinox so that it is usable.

Thus, with that, I think we've found that there is no valid argument to 'nerf' Defenders, and that there are ample low cost provision cards to counter artefacts and defenders.

Plenty of arguments from people who have been playing the game for years that artifacts are problematic. Defenders just need to be tweaked a bit imo.

I think we've determined conclusively that the problem is not with balance (on these couple of issues - scenarios ma need a tiny, tiny tweak), but in a lack of willingness of certain players to accept their decisions not to include cards they consider garbage - despite being only 4 provisions- is the real issue here.

You know how many points 4 provisions cards typically get that are played compeitively? 6 or 7 points and even more with the right synergies. A card that does nothing but purify is going to cost you points and lose you games. It's as simple as that.

A faction of players know the tools exist, but don't wanna spend the provisions or sully their decks with cards cuz they'd prefer to use even those measly 4 provisions on a unit with a number value, that boosts or something, and not a 'garbage card' costs 4 provisions, can kill an artefact costing 11 or more as well as one that can defeat the oh so powerful 9 provision defender despite its provision being only 4!

Purifying a defender alone and putting no points on the board is not defeating anything. The other player will most likely be happy that they played a 7 point defender and all you did was purify it. That's still a win for them.

Your point on artifact removal can be true or untrue. If you use bomb heaver for example on an artifact at stage 1 then that's a decent play. Some people do put those in their decks. I don't believe I have argued otherwise. But the problem here is that bomb heaver is a very bad play when a scenerio already hits stage 2. So I would argue right now bomb heaver isn't worth it since most decks trigger scenerios in one turn. Also bomb heaver does nothing against stratagems.

It's quite clear there isn't a problem, the counter cards exist, which are low enough in provision costs. They weren't designed not to be used. It's the player choice if choosing not to use such tools, but I can't see what right they have to complain when they make that choice.

Counter cards existing or not is not an argument that something is balanced. For example lets say defenders were 10 point cards right now. Countering them with purify and such would be fine to stop the defending so that you can attack the other units on that row but the defender itself would still need to be nerfed because 10 points is obviously too high.

It's all about what *they* want to play in their decks and rejecting what has been provided to play with. Whose fault is that?

Personally, I have no issues using 4 provision costs force couple of these 'garbage cards'. I think player mentality is a big issue with these IMAGINARY problems.

What players want or don't want isn't the point. This game all comes down to math/numbers. If a card isn't viable because it's too weak then players just aren't going to use it. I would love to use spring equinox in certain decks if it was good.

Artefacts are too powerful? You must be having a laugh!

When did I say that? I have argued that scenerios and Radeyah are overtuned which is a common idea. Pro players are saying the same thing.

 

[Iuliandrei]

I have several decks, and in one of them that is a card that I sometimes utilise. It's great for purifying the Syndicate defender in particular.

And how effective is it? i mean if you replace that card with another, would the deck be better or worse?

Well, that's OK - that's the choice of those players who make the active choice not to play those cards in their decks.

If you have a card that gives you 5 points and another card that gives you 7 points (for the same cost), that's not really a choice. If one option is strictly and obviously better than another, then you don't have a choice.
The point is that even in a game dominated by artifacts, if you put an artifact counter in your deck and the deck win rate goes down, then you have a problem somewhere.

 

[Fjortiso]

Well no i am not laughing just the opposite having an opponent with a powerful artifact scenario with caretaker is frustrating. Despite having an artifact removal you cant win...

So yes scenario artifacts are (specially NG and NR) too powerful.

 

[Fjortiso]

Oh dear, so now it's the poor old Caretaker's fault... He's a really high provision cost card and provides a unit value of 2. Scenarios can be wiped out by Bomb Heavers, Spring Equinox, etc., (if not triggered completely on round one - which can be an issue). Plus, there are cards that allow you to banish opponent cards, as well as a card that allows you to use to set the unit power to the cost of an artefact provision cost - and removing the artefact. Yet, despite all this, apparently artefacts are 'too strong'...

Well NG and Nr overcome the issue of removel with leader abilities, and it doesnt matter how high the caretaker's provision cost most of the time cause first it deserves the cost second it makes a player can win a game 2-0 with the burst of the points and enemy removals such as poison and siege bombard. That card with new scenarios is just too powerful you know it too but you do not wanna accept the fact cause most prolly you got the rank 0 with just these cards ^^

 

[ReaperTek]

The main problem with scenarios are the Tudor leaders which should have been removed long ago they were fine in open beta because they needed a separate turn and could only play silvers or bronzes but as the scenarios now showed they are gamebreaking and make non Tudor leaders obsolete.

They should also change the SC Stratagem to something different and the scenarios wouldn't been a auto include anymore.


The only reason to use Spring Equinox I can think about is to purify the doomed beasts (Crow's) with sk if you want to use Corrupted Flaminica as a finisher.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Well, it's still a choice, but perhaps not a choice you like. That's one of the points, I think, to a game like this - having to make choices, and some we might not necessarily like or want to make.

It's not a choice and it has nothing do with what you like or dislike. If i offer you 10$ or 50$ for the same thing, i'm not presenting you a choice.

As for your 'win rate' point, I suppose the solution is to go and make changes to your deck.

This has nothing to do with MY deck, you're missing the point. This is a general statement, take ANY deck you want (look at the top meta decks, none of them are running artifact removals) and replace a card with Dbomb or whatever tech card you think it's good, and the result is that you're making it WORSE.

 

[Gen_Liu]

No! I do not agree with this post and comments at all.

I've notice that there a number of people who complain about Defenders, etc., demanding that the STATUS be lockable. The reason is, as I've stated in other threads, that some want to be able to utilise their card slots for other cards. I think this thread is proof of that point.

I like to use the Defender, and I don't mind the fact that others may choose to use it - or not (and I will do what I can to counter a defender when used). I do not think it's acceptable to demand a change of the status of Defender simply to please a faction of players who don't like it. The point is that there are multiple ways to counter the Defender, and certain other cards. Whereas, it's also quite clear that certain decks are overpowered when it comes to poison (and certain other problems). The poison mechanic is, in itself, a problem (it's quite a poor mechanic that needs an overhaul).

Interesting to point out Poison as being a worst mechanic than Defender considering Poison is almost always a 1 for 2 and mostly take your unit one by one.

Defender, on the other hand, remove all interraction your opponent can have with one of your row (while it's not your entire board because, let's be honest here, nobody's gonna play a unit on their "weak" row anyway) which is genuinely the worst thing that can happen to a card game. Do you realize that Defenders prevent players from playing the game and reduces it to a brainless "I drop my card, you drop yours".

A card game is about interracting with your opponent, if you remove that aspect, then the game is dead and the only reason why that didn't happen with Gwent is because there is ways to deal with them (that absolutely everybody is including in their deck for obvious reasons), so if you're lucky enough to draw an appropriate removal you're allowed to play the game (thank you very much, this is too kind).

Playing the game shouldn't be an option that you have to fight for in a card game...In fact, it shouldn't be an option in any game ever.

You can defend the mechanic as much as you want, this is clear that Defender is hurting the game far more than Poison does.

And the funny thing being, I don't even like Poison as a mechanic, I agree it's not the best idea CDPR ever had but if I were to choose between redesigning one or the other, clearly this is Defender that has to be taken care of first.

And this is where, while I don't agree with everything the author of this thread wrote (for example, I don't think anti-artefact cards are an auto includes since your opponent get most, if not all, the value of their scenario by the time you play them anyway), I do agree with the general idea.

CDPR really need to realize that "side board" cards are not improving the experience of a game that doesn't have any but only give an illusion of fixing the problems it has.

Please guys, focus on improving the balance and redesign all "hardcore" tech cards so they actually serve a purpose outside of the very niche situation they're designed for.

 

[Gen_Liu]

Thanks for the opinion.

Firstly, a simple purify using the appropriate card removes the defender status and opens up the row. No big deal - plenty of ways to do that.

Also, for the NR defender, it's entirely possible to use a certain artefact, a sword - Tesham Mutna Sword (9 provisions, kill a shielded unit or inflict 5 damage) - to instantly kill the Defender because it has a shield (the artefacts destroys a shielded unit). Added to this, if you enjoy a bit of Sangreal, it's entirely possible to give an enemy unit a shield by using that card - obviously a risk strategy (still, I find it kinda exciting) - and then deploy Tesham Mutna to destroy it in the next round.

You can use a duel card to duel a defender and remove it.

It's possible to use Phillipa: Blind Fury.

The list goes on...

Again, it doesn't matter, the problem isn't how to deal with the card, the problem is, if you can't you lose the ability to play the game.

This is exactly the same problem as Sabbath back at the time it were broken. You could deal with it but it doesn't matter because the card was extremely toxic and represented a risk of killing the game just for existing.

This kind of card should simply not exist. It's not a matter of a card being too strong, it's a matter of a card being toxic for the game (with all the respect for CDPR, I'm not saying it's easy to design cards neither I say they shouldn't make mistakes. Everybody does and they made a pretty good job on Gwent overall but Defenders, in their current form, are a mistake).

There is two things that should be changed about Defenders.

First, they should give immune to one target chosen from your hand, not an entire row.
Second, the game needs a full rework of its control aspect. Some bronze units can deal 3 damage for a handfull of provisions while most of engine's body are 4 or 5 power. This is just too much.

Removals should be more sparce, more subject to rules (for example, removal that are only available for a specific archetype) and less aggressive in general.

The control problem in Gwent was the reason why they created Defenders and while I understand and respect that move it's pretty clear that they fixed a problem by creating another (this is often what happens when you're trying to counter a design flaw with a tech card).

Believe me, I'm trying to understand the point of everyone, as far as they are from mine but on this one, I do believe that Defenders are a huge obstacle for the enjoyement of the game. Every time you don't draw your removal and your opponent plays it is the most frustrating moment you can ever experience playing Gwent because nothing is more annoying than being denied the ability to play the game.

 

[Gen_Liu]

OK, I appreciate your point of view. however, having played with a defender unit for a while, as well as playing again them, I think you're overstating the supposed problem defenders cause. I've seen defenders wiped out as soon as deployed - I don't go crying about it, I just carry on playing.

I've faced defenders and have no easy way to remove them (sometimes I cannot), again, I just carry on playing. It's not a problem - sometimes things work in my favour, sometimes they don't, but I am not going to demand changes simply to ensure that things always work out for my benefit.

I'm sure there's already a card in one faction that prevents damage to a card to the left (or right - can't remember). I wouldn't want defenders to go down that route. If they did, I'd want defenders to protect at least TWO units - one on either side - and spying units (any units) from the other play should *not* be able to be placed between the Defender and the two cards on either side of it!

On the matter of spying, a spy card that was playable on the defended (with mechanics as they currently stand) enemy row which allowed a unit or two on that row to be targeted might be a possible option to reduce the effectiveness of a Defender. Or, similarly, a spying card that, when placed on the row (infiltrates), destroys any defender within a couple of turns if not somehow dealt with.

At any rate, I don't want to see Defenders removed as I think they are a great addition to the game.

Ah, I definitely agree with your last sentence. The concept of Defender is great and yes, why not make them protecting units on both of their sides (the spy trick should work though, I'm sorry but it's just too much protection in favor of Defenders for no reason, especially in a game where spies aren't nearly as dominant as they used to be).

On the general idea I agree with what you propose, it seem like a pretty good line, Defenders protect the unit on their side. Perfect and again, I do agree about Defenders being a great mechanic and a good addition for the game. The problem is how extreme they are in what they do.


And this is, btw, because Defenders were inspired by Taunt units in HS (there is no problem with that, everybody take idea from each other...In fact, have you seem Oko in MTG? It may just be a coincidence but this card gives me Iorveth meditation flash back) thinking it would work just fine in Gwent.
The problem, however, is that they made the same mistake as they did with card advantage or Create...Gwent is just a different game. What works with other games don't necessarily work with Gwent, so they have to adjust those mechanics to make them "compatible" with Gwent.

It's a very good thing, to be honest, it proves Gwent is a completely unique game that works in a completely unique way and that what I love with it but unfortunately, this aspect also come with drawbacks, one of them being you can't pick ideas from other games without testing them thoroughly.