The game is punishing non-meta players

+
Out of curiosity I played some of the unpopular decks and what can I say... they can't hold a candle to meta. None of them. :shrug:

If I don't play one of the strongest decks that everyone hates already - I lose most of the time.
And if I switch to poison - everything is perfect, I can reach pro rank tomorrow.

The gap is so obvious it is striking. And not in a good way.
 

Qzman

Forum regular
Every game is punishing non-meta players. That's literally how evolution works. It is inevitable.
From my experience, Gwent even does it much more softly than other games in its category.
 
As far as I know this is the case for most CCG games out there. After all non meta decks are non meta for a reason
 
As far as I know this is the case for most CCG games out there. After all non meta decks are non meta for a reason

Yeah, because some cards and mechanics are badly balanced. "Meta decks" are in fact exploitation decks that abuse deviations from the "average". Meta "hacking" creates these kind of meta exploits, which are normally not changed to narrow down cards deviations from "average". If no effort is made by the developers to narrow this deviation (aka balance the game) between all cards in the game, you're left with the current situation.

The complete deviations in Gwent has recently increased. About 12-18 months ago it was still possible to create decks using good cards and have them be competitive and performing at a high level or near to the optimal deck combinations. It was more about tactics and how to play those cards.

Now the game has become all about finding the biggest deviations from average, create meta decks and a competition between players who copy those decks and find the optimal way to play them.

Let's say a new meta was created and players in some competition were forced to blindly make decks themselves and compete with those, alot of players would be at a very low level of game knowledge and win ability, despite being able to perform quite well in the current situation. It's not a game without skills, that's not what I am saying, but the current "meta" is less about strategy and game understanding than it used to be, thus it is also a more stale competition between various meta decks, as you say, the deviations are now too big for non-meta decks to have any chance whatsoever against meta decks, regardless of game knowledge and strategic supremacy.
 
It is also why watching or playing in tournaments is rather tedious... and here is {top player1} vs {top player2} and the match up is again Harmony vs Harmony. At this level, they’d be quicker just splitting a pack of cards to decide the winner, and moving on, since largely it boils down to luck of the draw and who is the unfortunate who misses out on their critical card(s).

Once I achieved my goal of getting to rank 0, which in the end proved much easier than expected with a self-designed Congregate deck, I’ve moved on to play unranked since i have absolutely no desire to play against Mystic Echo, Uprising and Poison Ball ad nauseum.
 
Every game is punishing non-meta players. That's literally how evolution works. It is inevitable.
From my experience, Gwent even does it much more softly than other games in its category.
I can compare only with paper MTG. Some cards there costed ridiculous amount of real money but even without them I was able to combine a competitive deck. I recall it was more balanced actually, and between colours as well.
Maybe other current card games are like you say, then it's bad as well. Being a bit better than an even poorer game is not a strong justification really.
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
If cards in general had a more interesting design and correct sequencing therefor took more skill, that gap would close.
Games often play out so similarly that it's easy to 'master' these meta decks and get the most out of them.
Skill has become less of a factor with how simple and straightforward most of Homecoming's cards were designed.
 
Yeah, because some cards and mechanics are badly balanced. "Meta decks" are in fact exploitation decks that abuse deviations from the "average". Meta "hacking" creates these kind of meta exploits, which are normally not changed to narrow down cards deviations from "average". If no effort is made by the developers to narrow this deviation (aka balance the game) between all cards in the game, you're left with the current situation.

The complete deviations in Gwent has recently increased. About 12-18 months ago it was still possible to create decks using good cards and have them be competitive and performing at a high level or near to the optimal deck combinations. It was more about tactics and how to play those cards.

Now the game has become all about finding the biggest deviations from average, create meta decks and a competition between players who copy those decks and find the optimal way to play them.

Let's say a new meta was created and players in some competition were forced to blindly make decks themselves and compete with those, alot of players would be at a very low level of game knowledge and win ability, despite being able to perform quite well in the current situation. It's not a game without skills, that's not what I am saying, but the current "meta" is less about strategy and game understanding than it used to be, thus it is also a more stale competition between various meta decks, as you say, the deviations are now too big for non-meta decks to have any chance whatsoever against meta decks, regardless of game knowledge and strategic supremacy.
There are undeniably some unbalanced cards, but there is also a variety of reasons why some cards don't see play: powercrept, overnerfed, badly designed, filler cards or too conditional when there are better options (look at NG 4 provision bracket).
Ultimately it's CDPR to be faulty, but then again it's inevitable that not all cards will be playable.
By the way I only play off Meta/ Homebrew decks.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
Out of curiosity I played some of the unpopular decks and what can I say... they can't hold a candle to meta. None of them. :shrug:

If I don't play one of the strongest decks that everyone hates already - I lose most of the time.
And if I switch to poison - everything is perfect, I can reach pro rank tomorrow.

The gap is so obvious it is striking. And not in a good way.
sadly that seems to be what the devs are focused on....with each update they only enable meta's more and more. It's as though they believe pro ranked players make up the bulk of their players.
 
Out of curiosity I played some of the unpopular decks and what can I say... they can't hold a candle to meta. None of them. :shrug:

If I don't play one of the strongest decks that everyone hates already - I lose most of the time.
And if I switch to poison - everything is perfect, I can reach pro rank tomorrow.

The gap is so obvious it is striking. And not in a good way.
Not really, You can make a deck and make it work, an off meta one, it just requires Calculating and experimenting, Careful deck building in General, That is what Pro players and Streamers do, and that's why they make top decks everyone copies, it's just Careful deck building, calculating power and prov etc, but, I do agree the Game can be much better than this, and be much more Balanced, but it's not that bad atm.
 
There are undeniably some unbalanced cards, but there is also a variety of reasons why some cards don't see play: powercrept, overnerfed, badly designed, filler cards or too conditional when there are better options (look at NG 4 provision bracket).
Ultimately it's CDPR to be faulty, but then again it's inevitable that not all cards will be playable.
By the way I only play off Meta/ Homebrew decks.

Well, I actually think the game is quite well balanced. It's just some things unbalance it.. It was more balanced before in regards to the "average" with less deviation.

The problem in my opinion is the lack of refining that "quite well balanced" game. Instead of doing that when it was more balanced than now, they shifted the whole meta ("power creep"). But that's not really a problem if they balance it around that. But alot more effort! Now way more cards are out of balance to the "new average", while before it would have been easier to balance it due to fewer cards/mechanics needing refinement, fine tuning and polishing.

So, while before the deviations were smaller, it's too late to go back. But all the more work it will take to balance it around the new normal. Way more cards and much higher deviations to correct. And you also still need to balance all those cards that were balanced in the "old average" to the "new average". That's maybe hundreds of cards that are no longer good or decent and need a major lift to keep up with the current situation.

Personally I liked it when deviations came from strategic decisions rather than unbalanced cards.

Undoubtedly, lifting all the "old average" cards to the "new average" will completely shift the meta. Or perhaps it would be a better idea to stick to the old average and adjust those cards that deviate too much from it?
 
Well, I actually think the game is quite well balanced. It's just some things unbalance it.. It was more balanced before in regards to the "average" with less deviation.

The problem in my opinion is the lack of refining that "quite well balanced" game. Instead of doing that when it was more balanced than now, they shifted the whole meta ("power creep"). But that's not really a problem if they balance it around that. But alot more effort! Now way more cards are out of balance to the "new average", while before it would have been easier to balance it due to fewer cards/mechanics needing refinement, fine tuning and polishing.

So, while before the deviations were smaller, it's too late to go back. But all the more work it will take to balance it around the new normal. Way more cards and much higher deviations to correct. And you also still need to balance all those cards that were balanced in the "old average" to the "new average". That's maybe hundreds of cards that are no longer good or decent and need a major lift to keep up with the current situation.

Personally I liked it when deviations came from strategic decisions rather than unbalanced cards.

Undoubtedly, lifting all the "old average" cards to the "new average" will completely shift the meta. Or perhaps it would be a better idea to stick to the old average and adjust those cards that deviate too much from it?
Second option would be easier, but then you have to always be careful to not powercreep the game.
Even if that's possible I'm not sure it's economically convenient. Powercreep leads players to use resources to acquire new cards. New players especially could buy resources with real money.
 
Not really, You can make a deck and make it work, an off meta one, it just requires Calculating and experimenting, Careful deck building in General, That is what Pro players and Streamers do, and that's why they make top decks everyone copies, it's just Careful deck building, calculating power and prov etc, but, I do agree the Game can be much better than this, and be much more Balanced, but it's not that bad atm.

It's impossible to calculate a good deck against an unknown enemy bringing unknown cards and abilities into the game. The variables are just too many for that to be possible. Meaning that those meta decks are rather "overpowered" (large deviations) and foolproof ways to win games almost regardless of what the enemy does.

Thus they "exploit" deviations in the meta and bypass norms that the average cards have to adhere to, without necessarily being a result of any particular strategy or skill (just cards with large deviations).

I was fiddling with the thought that we may call these decks "juggernaut decks". Unless they have very particular counters stacked up against them, they will have a very high win rate, since they don't adhere to the norms of the rest of the game. I'm not saying cards should not deviate based on clever strategy, deck building and tactics, but that's just not the case currently.

Back in the old average, the deviations were fewer and smaller, but you could still have great decks, but based on strategy of both yourself and the opponent.
 
It's impossible to calculate a good deck against an unknown enemy bringing unknown cards and abilities into the game. The variables are just too many for that to be possible. Meaning that those meta decks are rather "overpowered" (large deviations) and foolproof ways to win games almost regardless of what the enemy does.

Thus they "exploit" deviations in the meta and bypass norms that the average cards have to adhere to, without necessarily being a result of any particular strategy or skill (just cards with large deviations).

I was fiddling with the thought that we may call these decks "juggernaut decks". Unless they have very particular counters stacked up against them, they will have a very high win rate, since they don't adhere to the norms of the rest of the game. I'm not saying cards should not deviate based on clever strategy, deck building and tactics, but that's just not the case currently.

Back in the old average, the deviations were fewer and smaller, but you could still have great decks, but based on strategy of both yourself and the opponent.
I meant Calculating your own deck, and the value you can get from cards and combos, in order not to Put something underpowered in your deck, and you'll see there are many cards that play for their Prov, that do not see play simply because they are not in Meta Snapshots or Streamers Decks, Streamers are able to Create decks every now and then, so the game is pretty diverse, why ppl don't try that is another topic, I agree that certain decks become god tier and need to be nerfed in a hotfix, but you can tech against them if you are creating your own homebrew deck.
Also Creating Homebrew decks needs experimenting aswell, you might see you are bad at certain matchups, and need to Change some cards to improve your bad matchups, for example, I Created a Bloodthirst Deck last season, and actually Climbed with it, and defeated most Hidden Caches and uprising players, aswell as Poisen NG, Or I wanted make a Siege deck, played some games, realised Trebuchets don't bring that much value cus the opponent will play all their cards on melee row, so Why not add some Crazy row damage and use this advantage? I added Dragons dream and Sabrina, and it worked perfectly. Same for Streamers, if Gwent was that imbalanced, they wouldn't have been able to come up with new decks every now and then, but as a whole I agree that it needs to be better than this, but as I said, it's not that bad either.
 
I've seen quite a few good creative decks that weren't "meta" by any stretch of the word lately. Still, they were a minority, but the point is that it is generally possible to beat meta decks without overspecializing your deck. I mean, the fact that we mainly see the same three decks in the game is deplorable, but it's not like you can't build your own powerful homebrew thing.

I don't really see people using Dragon Dream much, and I'm yet to see Aglais played by someone other than me in my games. Still, they work fairly well for me. Well enough to contest some of the best metadecks out there. Some cards just need a bit more tinkering around, but they pay off big time if you put just the right amount of support for them in your deck. Yesterday I saw a guy who was running some kind of janky arachas deck and I couldn't even understand what he was doing (no Kikimore/Yen), but his numbers were impressively strong all the same and well-spread too and, I assume, that deck is kinda hard to wipe out with poison or Vissegerd (but easy to wipe with Yrden+Dragon Dream :smart:)

None of the above is meant to say "Uprising, Harmony and NG Poison aren't broken" (because they are and need some nerfs badly), but my point, again, is that it's still possible to punish them with maverick strategies - because they're always predictable, while you can make an element of surprise a part of your strat.
 
I meant Calculating your own deck, and the value you can get from cards and combos, in order not to Put something underpowered in your deck, and you'll see there are many cards that play for their Prov, that do not see play simply because they are not in Meta Snapshots or Streamers Decks, Streamers are able to Create decks every now and then, so the game is pretty diverse, why ppl don't try that is another topic, I agree that certain decks become god tier and need to be nerfed in a hotfix, but you can tech against them if you are creating your own homebrew deck.
Also Creating Homebrew decks needs experimenting aswell, you might see you are bad at certain matchups, and need to Change some cards to improve your bad matchups, for example, I Created a Bloodthirst Deck last season, and actually Climbed with it, and defeated most Hidden Caches and uprising players, aswell as Poisen NG, Or I wanted make a Siege deck, played some games, realised Trebuchets don't bring that much value cus the opponent will play all their cards on melee row, so Why not add some Crazy row damage and use this advantage? I added Dragons dream and Sabrina, and it worked perfectly. Same for Streamers, if Gwent was that imbalanced, they wouldn't have been able to come up with new decks every now and then, but as a whole I agree that it needs to be better than this, but as I said, it's not that bad either.

Well, exceptions prove the rule. I only ever created my own decks, so I have a bit of knowledge of what I am doing. Yet there has never been a season where it was more difficult to make it with your own deck than last season. Due to the stale gameplay and only ever meeting the same deck I was in a way forced to make decks that specifically tech against those decks. It was near impossible to make it well with more "generic" (but yet "powerful") decks. That's why I was tempted to call some cards and decks "juggernaut". Just because simply regardless of your cards and what you do in the game, their win rate will be very high anyways, unless you purposefully tech against them (and even then it can be difficult).

This is part of the problem. If you have no chance without tech against those decks, there is something not quite right. And in my opinion it's those decks and certain cards (deviations).

Ofcourse players will try to find the best value cards, that's normal, I do that too. But when said cards have deviations that are so big that it makes the rest of the cards unviable, that's when the problems arrive.

My way to explain this is the "old average" and the "new average". Indeed a large part of the game has deviated from the "old average" to create the "new average", which in turn has made alot of cards deviate (negatively) from the "new average". That doesn't mean that cards don't deviate alot (positively) against the "new average" as well.

By deviation as I said, I don't mean in play deviations as a result of strategic gameplay that makes cards deviate from an average "value", but rather just non-cleverly devised cards that just deviate from the norm on their own and has no real counterplay. Ergo the "juggernauts".

People call these cards and comboes "auto-include", "overpowered" etc etc. Some are, against the "new average" and some are against the "old average". The range of value you can get from cards is not the problem either and not deviations. I think it's been a real long time since it has been possible to find so many cards with a "large deviation" from the "norm", which in turns create the "juggernauts" and stale situation.
 
I do not contradict with people who say it is possible to win with non-meta deck. Of course, it is possible. But if you gather your own statistics of win/lose against the meta with one of your peculiar decks I will be very much surprised if it is anywhere near 50% win at least. Previous orator explained it perfectly.
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
I do not contradict with people who say it is possible to win with non-meta deck. Of course, it is possible. But if you gather your own statistics of win/lose against the meta with one of your peculiar decks I will be very much surprised if it is anywhere near 50% win at least. Previous orator explained it perfectly.
that's about right. I play MO deathwish but use an unorthodox strategy which doesn't include Dettlaffe or Ruehin or Scenarios or any of the usual meta plays because they're repetitive and dull. Prior to the buff to the usual factions in the last major update I would say maybe 55% - 60% and to be honest I was fine with that. If I lost it was still fun (NG being an exception). Since the last major update however It's around 25-30% and that's if I draw a good hand. I've stopped playing since because I'm not interested in playing a meta deck
 
that's about right. I play MO deathwish but use an unorthodox strategy which doesn't include Dettlaffe or Ruehin or Scenarios or any of the usual meta plays because they're repetitive and dull. Prior to the buff to the usual factions in the last major update I would say maybe 55% - 60% and to be honest I was fine with that. If I lost it was still fun (NG being an exception). Since the last major update however It's around 25-30% and that's if I draw a good hand. I've stopped playing since because I'm not interested in playing a meta deck
Fifty lashes to this man! He dares to play Monsters without Scenario and Ruehin! :cry:
 

Guest 4375874

Guest
Fifty lashes to this man! He dares to play Monsters without Scenario and Ruehin! :cry:
:ROFLMAO: I used to but you kept seeing the same play everywhere. I don't know how ppl find these meta decks fun or fulfilling after a win when you put zero thought into it, it's not really your deck. Oddly I did better against NG lock/poison with my unorthodox deck because they didn't know what to expect. That was until Double ball xD
 
Top Bottom