Suggestion: Reduce binariness and RNG. It's not healthy.

[Archan6el]

I would like to see binariness reduced as much as possible. I think it would make the gameplay/battle better and more interesting.

Some examples:
- Artifacts stay or are destroyed.
- Geralt of Rivia and Leo Bonhart: "Destroy and enemy with 8 or more power". They cannot kill a small enemy (and even lose 1:1 against a 4 point unit that does nothing), but a big enemy is completely destroyed. How does that make sense? Why not let them do high (8?) damage as the tough guys they are, but within reason?
- Geralt: Professional: "Damage an enemy by 3. If its power was a multiple of 3, destroy it instead". Limit to 9 damage max?
- Falibor: "Destroy an enemy unit with orders". Why not let him do damage (5?) to an enemy unit with orders? Or 4 damage and put his strength at 4. Balance like that.

There are cards that lock, reset, move or do (high) damage. No need for "destroy" like this.

Cards like Villentretenmerth and Scorch stay the same of course.

 

[thetruerenter]

The most binary cards probably are the Witcher Trio, in my opinion it's best to change/ban those cards then all examples suggested above. I don't play with the Witcher trio. It's a boring 3 slot takewaway. And I'm about having the worst score ever since any season with a 20-70 of which half of the 20 games was forfeited pregamely. After some thinking I can only conclude it is because of the Witcher Trio.

 

[Archan6el]

Added RNG to be reduced as well. Binary and RNG-heavy cards like Viper Witchers and tutoring/spawning cards that have no limit to the provisions of cards that they can tutor/spawn cannot be properly balanced because there is no range limit on their effect. When you include and/or play these type of cards, there is not much strategy and you just hope for the best. This gambling feeling is not healthy in my opinion. I think the RNG in card draws from your deck is enough and there is no need to add this much additional RNG through card abilities. Shupe is another example, as just mentioned in this topic: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...more-cards-like-draug.10998349/#post-11384779

And please bring back blacklisting. Not having it is another type of bad RNG.

 

[Archan6el]

Thinking more about this. Homecoming brought more RNG to Gwent, with only two bronze copies and initially less mulligans. There is now more binariness than ever before with artifact removal and many one-hit-kill cards. Do I draw the card I need - yes/no. Does my artifact or unit stick? You will know the next opponent's turn - yes/no. This binariness creates highs and lows for your mind. It's like gambling and can be addictive. I would appreciate if Gwent becomes more of a strategy game than a gambling game.

 

[DRK3]

So, the OP wants to remove the best big unit counters there are, because Big Monsters is such a weak deck that really needs a buff, in the form of nerfing its counters?

Maybe Geralt needs a 2nd weaker ability, so it doesnt brick (so often) when there arent any big units, like Leo Bonhart has.

 

[Archan6el]

So, the OP wants to remove the best big unit counters there are, because Big Monsters is such a weak deck that really needs a buff, in the form of nerfing its counters?

Maybe Geralt needs a 2nd weaker ability, so it doesnt brick (so often) when there arent any big units, like Leo Bonhart has.

For reasons mentioned above, I would like to see the binariness significantly reduced. An insta-kill of a big unit is as binary as it can get. In my opinion, these Monster units shouldn't be so big in the first place. Big Monsters may be the cause of the introduction of such binariness. It would be more interesting if units like Geralt and Bonhart do big damage, but not unlimited damage (and then they also don't brick). Then, if you manage to boost your unit high enough (challenge), you can protect them from even Geralt and Bonhart. That would make more sense.

 

[DRK3]

For reasons mentioned above, I would like to see the binariness significantly reduced. An insta-kill of a big unit is as binary as it can get. In my opinion, these Monster units shouldn't be so big in the first place. Big Monsters may be the cause of the introduction of such binariness. It would be more interesting if units like Geralt and Bonhart do big damage, but not unlimited damage (and then they also don't brick). Then, if you manage to boost your unit high enough (challenge), you can protect them from even Geralt and Bonhart. That would make more sense.

I understand, but there must always be a way to destroy big units, there's a risk associated with putting big units, the bigger the unit, the bigger the risk. Imagine a 40pt Aglais, and the only thing the opponent can do is do big chunks of damage (like 8/10) at a time.

The way it is now, it encourages to distribute the boosts, so if your biggest unit gets destroyed you dont lose as much, because for ex. the enemy had 8pt to do damage but your biggest unit was a 5, so he wasted 3dmg.

 

[Archan6el]

I understand, but there must always be a way to destroy big units, there's a risk associated with putting big units, the bigger the unit, the bigger the risk. Imagine a 40pt Aglais, and the only thing the opponent can do is do big chunks of damage (like 8/10) at a time.

The way it is now, it encourages to distribute the boosts, so if your biggest unit gets destroyed you dont lose as much, because for ex. the enemy had 8pt to do damage but your biggest unit was a 5, so he wasted 3dmg.

I agree, but I also believe that if you put boosts on your unit, it should be rewarded and not punished by a from-8-and-above-kill-all" Geralt. If units (unlike Monsters) only get big/huge through boosts, then this should be countered by resets and then killed if necessary by removal. That would be a two step process and not the binary removal we have now.

 

[petr_klokan]

I really like the machanics some people (and the author of this thread) call ‘binary’. In my opinion they are just and bring much needed complexity, diversity and strategic element to the game.

 

[Rammyp]

I would like to see binariness reduced as much as possible. I think it would make the gameplay/battle better and more interesting.

Some examples:
- Artifacts stay or are destroyed.
- Geralt of Rivia and Leo Bonhart: "Destroy and enemy with 8 or more power". They cannot kill a small enemy (and even lose 1:1 against a 4 point unit that does nothing), but a big enemy is completely destroyed. How does that make sense? Why not let them do high (8?) damage as the tough guys they are, but within reason?
- Geralt: Professional: "Damage an enemy by 3. If its power was a multiple of 3, destroy it instead". Limit to 9 damage max?
- Falibor: "Destroy an enemy unit with orders". Why not let him do damage (5?) to an enemy unit with orders? Or 4 damage and put his strength at 4. Balance like that.

There are cards that lock, reset, move or do (high) damage. No need for "destroy" like this.

Cards like Villentretenmerth and Scorch stay the same of course.

The only thing this is going to achieve is that scorch will be autoinclude. Its not just the monsters but pretty much every faction can produce at least one big unit (or one that can be boosted instantly)
NR - Hubert Rejk
ST - Has lots of cards that boost unit in your hand and can easily bring 4-5 str units to a cool 9-10 str by round 2-3, ofc there
are Aglais and to a lesser extent Xavier
SC - Dagur + Haralds leader ability can reach 12 str in 1 turn
NG - Tibor
And there are ofcourse a couple of neutral high str units available to all factions (Dao and Caldwell)

A change that you offer will make the big/easily buffable units much more common and the scorch will be an autoincluded counter to such tactics. Imho i don't think it will benefit the gameplay.

 

[Archan6el]

I really like the machanics some people (and the author of this thread) call ‘binary’. In my opinion they are just and bring much needed complexity, diversity and strategic element to the game.

You're entitled to your opinion, but playing or boosting to a big unit and then playing just one card to completely remove that unit does not sound complex to me. In fact, it is just a binary gamble with big removal. Removing a big unit through reset and/or (multiple) damage is much more of a tactical choice compared to the current 1 - 1 exchange of play - remove.

The only thing this is going to achieve is that scorch will be autoinclude. Its not just the monsters but pretty much every faction can produce at least one big unit (or one that can be boosted instantly)

In my first post, I'm proposing to let cards like Geralt do high damage and not unlimited damage. That means that you can still remove an engine at once when it is not too big yet. Scorch is fine, because it is a tactical card. It removes the highest unit, even if it is your own and you need to make a good guess when to play it and/or set it up. Then there is also Geralt Yrden and several reset tech cards.

 

[Rammyp]

In my first post, I'm proposing to let cards like Geralt do high damage and not unlimited damage. That means that you can still remove an engine at once when it is not too big yet. Scorch is fine, because it is a tactical card. It removes the highest unit, even if it is your own and you need to make a good guess when to play it and/or set it up. Then there is also Geralt Yrden and several reset tech cards.

I wasn't talking about engines (well except Dagur and Xavier) but about units that have/can be boosted above 10 str in 1 turn or with just one more card. This will make the boosting/running big units much more common and as a result a scorch will become much more common to counter this. The game will just become more boring with more cards becoming dead, after all players will not take a chance with 8 dmg Geralt to counter 20-30 points Hubert or Aglais, but rather pick scorch or yrden instead. I think that as long as there are cards that i mentioned in my post above, the "destroy" mechanics should stay unchanged.

 

[Archan6el]

This will make the boosting/running big units much more common and as a result a scorch will become much more common to counter this.

I'm not sure how the boosting/running big units can become more common than it already is right now.

The game will just become more boring with more cards becoming dead, after all players will not take a chance with 8 dmg Geralt to counter 20-30 points Hubert or Aglais, but rather pick scorch or yrden instead. I think that as long as there are cards that i mentioned in my post above, the "destroy" mechanics should stay unchanged.

That makes no sense to me. A unit that does 8 damage is certainly not boring and "dead" and should pose a threat to all but the biggest boosted units. Doing unlimited damage is nonsense. And then picking the most extreme examples: Hubert and Aglais can be countered by Scorch and Geralt: Yrden as you mentioned and these cards are already commonly used.

 

[4RM3D]

Doing unlimited damage is nonsense.

And doing "unlimited" boosting isn't? All-in/one-trick-pony decks should have a punishable effect like that. And when such a tactic becomes common, players are going to run counters, especially those that offer more value than their provision costs on average. This is, however, a problem with the meta, not with the design of the game.

That isn't to say the design of the game doesn't have its own share of problems, but they should be separated from other issues. Which leads me to...

A unit that does 8 damage is certainly not boring and "dead" and should pose a threat to all but the biggest boosted units.

Not boring? Flat damage and buffs is what makes the game boring. That's why I like the design of Zoltan Chivay and Yaevinn, where you build towards removal. Scorch, while not a favorite card of mine, is still one of the best designed cards in the game. Why? It has no hard cap and it is a universal answer to anything immune or gigantic, with a bonus when you can align units.

 

[petr_klokan]

You're entitled to your opinion, but playing or boosting to a big unit and then playing just one card to completely remove that unit does not sound complex to me. In fact, it is just a binary gamble with big removal. Removing a big unit through reset and/or (multiple) damage is much more of a tactical choice compared to the current 1 - 1 exchange of play - remove.

So if we take all ‘binaries’: artifacts (incl. traps)/destroy artifacts, weather/clear weather, lock/unlock (seems binary to me), spells and units with destroy effect and remove them or change them to deal/take damage, what are we left with?

I’ve played very viable decks that don’t run 8+ units. Good luck with Geralt. But thanks to him players can’t expect to win easily with simple boost combos or tall unit strategies.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

You want to fix the problem you add back mechanics and try new fixes. For one example, resilience used to be a thing. Now very few cards have it and under very limited circumstances. You wouldn't need to kill the big units if you could carry power to the next round. Another example is reset. Reset should unlock cards. If this were the case decks would carry them and have less need for big killers. Have problems with RNG cards, change the create option into something more quantifiable. For example instead of create a random card, create 1 of 3 specific options that are stated ahead of time. Or have a pool of options based on your or your opponents decks that activate (not sure about the programming side, this might not be possible.) The advantage to create should be insight into your opponents deck or hand rather than 3 arbitrary cards (some of which are counterproductive, discard I'm looking at you.)

Imagine if the ranked played like the tournament where your opponent can see your deck list at any time. Moreover, you could ban one faction (which eliminates the triangle which Gwent has become. I.e ST is too weak to stand up to point slam monsters, but point slam monsters are too on their own side of the board to handle NR engines. NR engines are of course vulnerable to NG locks which don't help much against SK deploy damage.) Banning a faction takes away the buzzsaw that your deck is likely to walk into.

Finally, the mulligan system is ok, but instead I would give the player 2 specific cards of their choice. (I.e draw 10, pick 2, the first is placed at the bottom of the deck, the second is placed randomly. Now select from the remaining cards 2 that you want.) Next round draw 2 replace 1 with any card you chose. Same with the 3rd round. This way there is strategy. Combine this with a decklist and your opponent can try and plan for you.

 

[Draconifors]

Two posts deleted. Keep real life politics away from here, please, as per the forum rules.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Finally, the mulligan system is ok, but instead I would give the player 2 specific cards of their choice. (I.e draw 10, pick 2, the first is placed at the bottom of the deck, the second is placed randomly. Now select from the remaining cards 2 that you want.) Next round draw 2 replace 1 with any card you chose. Same with the 3rd round. This way there is strategy. Combine this with a decklist and your opponent can try and plan for you.

I'd be curious if anyone has insight into this myself. I'm getting tired of opting to not take mulligans on unwanted cards R2 for fear of re-drawing them at the start of R3. Blacklisting would be nice too.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I would like to see binariness reduced as much as possible. I think it would make the gameplay/battle better and more interesting.

Some examples:
- Artifacts stay or are destroyed.
- Geralt of Rivia and Leo Bonhart: "Destroy and enemy with 8 or more power". They cannot kill a small enemy (and even lose 1:1 against a 4 point unit that does nothing), but a big enemy is completely destroyed. How does that make sense? Why not let them do high (8?) damage as the tough guys they are, but within reason?
- Geralt: Professional: "Damage an enemy by 3. If its power was a multiple of 3, destroy it instead". Limit to 9 damage max?
- Falibor: "Destroy an enemy unit with orders". Why not let him do damage (5?) to an enemy unit with orders? Or 4 damage and put his strength at 4. Balance like that.

There are cards that lock, reset, move or do (high) damage. No need for "destroy" like this.

Cards like Villentretenmerth and Scorch stay the same of course.

That would make professional, Geralt, and Leo pretty weak.

 

[Archan6el]

And doing "unlimited" boosting isn't?

Unlimited boosting (to infinite?) doesn't exist, unlimited removal (to zero) does.

Not boring? Flat damage and buffs is what makes the game boring. That's why I like the design of Zoltan Chivay and Yaevinn, where you build towards removal. Scorch, while not a favorite card of mine, is still one of the best designed cards in the game. Why? It has no hard cap and it is a universal answer to anything immune or gigantic, with a bonus when you can align units.

I'm not talking about Zoltan and Yaevinn and I already mentioned Scorch. They're cool cards. Geralt and Bonhart however do unlimited flat damage. Binary stuff.

So if we take all ‘binaries’: artifacts (incl. traps)/destroy artifacts, weather/clear weather, lock/unlock (seems binary to me), spells and units with destroy effect and remove them or change them to deal/take damage, what are we left with?

I wrote "reduce binariness", not completely remove. I gave specific examples. There will remain some binariness and you gave some examples.

I’ve played very viable decks that don’t run 8+ units. Good luck with Geralt. But thanks to him players can’t expect to win easily with simple boost combos or tall unit strategies.

What you describe is exactly the issue: Even when you put significant effort in it and set up a combo or boost strategy (no engine), it can simply be one-shotted by Geralt. That's just lame. Instead of being awarded for your boost strategy, you get punished. Removal of boosted units should be more difficult instead, needing to put some extra effort into it with a reset and then a remove for example. Now it's just quick and dirty binary stuff.

...

I agree with your line of thought. A great example are the tech reset cards. They're very rarely used, because it's easier to go for the quick binary removal over-8-you're-dead-card. Lame binary stuff.

I'd be curious if anyone has insight into this myself. I'm getting tired of opting to not take mulligans on unwanted cards R2 for fear of re-drawing them at the start of R3. Blacklisting would be nice too.

Fully agree. I find it amazing how many times you draw the only copy of the card that you just mulliganed. Please bring back blacklisting.

That would make professional, Geralt, and Leo pretty weak.

How so? With this proposal, they can kill all but the biggest units and engines in one shot. That seems pretty strong.

The main issue with the binariness is that it looks like gambling (as Freddybabes also mentioned in his vid about artifacts). You either remove or not. There is no tactic to remove (for example 3 cards with reset - damage - damage), it all has to be done quick with one card. Quick highs and lows, much more so than in beta. And it's known how that works psychologically. This is supposed to be a strategy game right?