Hi gwent community, I've decided to share my thoughts about gwent, it's future and things that must have been done to significantly increase probability of gwent's existence afer current year. Of course even if all that changes would be implemented, it won't guarantee that gwent will be live happily ever after. So many mistakes was made in the past 5 years, that gwent's demise can be unfortunatelly irreversable at that point, and on top of that we all know how strong is resistance in devs team to any community ideas and suggestions. But still it's worth to try, because if my suggestions even won't save gwent, at least I will feel better that I done what was in my power to help.
And here we approach theme of first of my threads, in particular regarding to immunity mechanics: that is binary, irritating, unnecessary, and by any means should be removed from the game as soon as possible.
I am playing gwent since 2017 and as far as I remember immunity was [...] mechanic. The oldest memory about immunity that I recall was neutral Avallach that could geave immunity to any unit , and immune MO werewolf. Unanswered avallach making engine like vysogota immune was almost certain win. Immune Werewolf, on the order hand, was used in monsters deck as boosted in hand to 12 points finisher that could not been answered with anything except scorch - he was something like older version of present Sove. Both of that mentioned above cards was very irritating and unnecessary. And there was also immune dragon seasenthessis in SC, used along immune werewolf in toxic 20 special cards no unit decks, what for long long time was the most frustrating part of the game.
Adressing that issues took a long time for devs, and even when they somewhat eventually did that, any lessons wasn't learned, and next cards with immunity was released to irritate players playing against that cards. Paraphrasing old saying: if my opponent plays immune unit and I have no tech answer - its not fun. But when I play immune unit and opponent do not have tech answer - its perfectly fine.
And here we are now in the state of the game, where immunity units are still mainly or binary abusive cards, or are not played at all. The best illustration of that is Tibor-15 points immune engine, that in assumption should be statuses decks support. But what He is in practice? Core of degenerative multiple tibors archetype, when even 4 played on table immune tibors are able to generate enough points to beat almost any other deck, even after opponents 6 cards advantage. And - of course - in statuses intended decks tibor is not played at all. Now lets hipotetise what would happend if tibor looses it's immunity? What would change? For sure he still wouldnt be played in statuses deck still, so anything wouldnt changed in that matter. Yet - and here we approach to the most important fact - as target subjected for regular removals, he wont be played at all-or-nothing spams, and that unhealthly archetype would probably never have been created. So as clearly visible on that example, that it is immunity of tibor is a problem, not his design nor even practitioneers that are able to create multiple tibors, because even multiple tibors would just have been killed, locked or counterd in any other way - like in normal healthly game state should be.
So as its clearly visible, immunity in that case is tottaly unnecessary and harmful.
Another example is Saskia Commander - without specific counter she can win the round on her own, its definitively way too OP. But what would happen if that card didn't have its immunity? It would be just very strong engine, that have ability to put two engines on the board at the same time, but not tech-remove or loose card. Emhyr is very good example to illustrate that point: he is also 13prov card as saskia Commander, he also have ability to play two engines on board in the same time, he is strong card autoincluded in all statuses decks, but he is not tremendously overpowered like immune saskia.
Another examples are some immune cards like erland, sove, cat - every one of that cards could be just very strong card without immunity, but not abusive as they are right now. i recently played against bet-all-in-one-card 24 points immune sove on board in pirates deck - i lost only because sove was immune and I couldnt do anything to it due to loyality in my deck, opponent didnt have anything ealse on the board - I dont consider is as a fair lost. Sove without immunity would be strong 11prov, 20+ points pointslam, but counterable. Very normal thing - iimmunity for him makes him unnecessarly abusive.
That said, I don't see any reason to keep immunity mechanics in gwent at all - current strong immune cards will be still strong without immunity, weak immune cards will be still weak without it - nothing will change here. But what will dissapear in package with immunity, is frustration of players playing against immune cards and having no tech-counters for them.
And here we approach theme of first of my threads, in particular regarding to immunity mechanics: that is binary, irritating, unnecessary, and by any means should be removed from the game as soon as possible.
I am playing gwent since 2017 and as far as I remember immunity was [...] mechanic. The oldest memory about immunity that I recall was neutral Avallach that could geave immunity to any unit , and immune MO werewolf. Unanswered avallach making engine like vysogota immune was almost certain win. Immune Werewolf, on the order hand, was used in monsters deck as boosted in hand to 12 points finisher that could not been answered with anything except scorch - he was something like older version of present Sove. Both of that mentioned above cards was very irritating and unnecessary. And there was also immune dragon seasenthessis in SC, used along immune werewolf in toxic 20 special cards no unit decks, what for long long time was the most frustrating part of the game.
Adressing that issues took a long time for devs, and even when they somewhat eventually did that, any lessons wasn't learned, and next cards with immunity was released to irritate players playing against that cards. Paraphrasing old saying: if my opponent plays immune unit and I have no tech answer - its not fun. But when I play immune unit and opponent do not have tech answer - its perfectly fine.
And here we are now in the state of the game, where immunity units are still mainly or binary abusive cards, or are not played at all. The best illustration of that is Tibor-15 points immune engine, that in assumption should be statuses decks support. But what He is in practice? Core of degenerative multiple tibors archetype, when even 4 played on table immune tibors are able to generate enough points to beat almost any other deck, even after opponents 6 cards advantage. And - of course - in statuses intended decks tibor is not played at all. Now lets hipotetise what would happend if tibor looses it's immunity? What would change? For sure he still wouldnt be played in statuses deck still, so anything wouldnt changed in that matter. Yet - and here we approach to the most important fact - as target subjected for regular removals, he wont be played at all-or-nothing spams, and that unhealthly archetype would probably never have been created. So as clearly visible on that example, that it is immunity of tibor is a problem, not his design nor even practitioneers that are able to create multiple tibors, because even multiple tibors would just have been killed, locked or counterd in any other way - like in normal healthly game state should be.
So as its clearly visible, immunity in that case is tottaly unnecessary and harmful.
Another example is Saskia Commander - without specific counter she can win the round on her own, its definitively way too OP. But what would happen if that card didn't have its immunity? It would be just very strong engine, that have ability to put two engines on the board at the same time, but not tech-remove or loose card. Emhyr is very good example to illustrate that point: he is also 13prov card as saskia Commander, he also have ability to play two engines on board in the same time, he is strong card autoincluded in all statuses decks, but he is not tremendously overpowered like immune saskia.
Another examples are some immune cards like erland, sove, cat - every one of that cards could be just very strong card without immunity, but not abusive as they are right now. i recently played against bet-all-in-one-card 24 points immune sove on board in pirates deck - i lost only because sove was immune and I couldnt do anything to it due to loyality in my deck, opponent didnt have anything ealse on the board - I dont consider is as a fair lost. Sove without immunity would be strong 11prov, 20+ points pointslam, but counterable. Very normal thing - iimmunity for him makes him unnecessarly abusive.
That said, I don't see any reason to keep immunity mechanics in gwent at all - current strong immune cards will be still strong without immunity, weak immune cards will be still weak without it - nothing will change here. But what will dissapear in package with immunity, is frustration of players playing against immune cards and having no tech-counters for them.
Last edited by a moderator: