Update 4.1 is a bad joke

+

Guest 4336264

Guest
I actually disagree with your whole point.
First of all, why does everyone seems to only think about balance to establish whether or not a card is a problem? Balance is important but it's not everything.

The problem of Defenders isn't balance but design. The reason why CDPR put them in the game is because Gwent's control is too aggressive...So instead of redesigning the game to make it more playable they went for the lazy option: Make a card type that kills control.

Here's the thing though, Gwent (and every card game, for that matter) is about playing with another player, interraction is everything, this is where the fun of the game comes.

Damaging this unit so I can work towards removing it, locking that one to slows down your value, boosting this ally to put it out of range of a specific removal....That's what the game is about. If you remove that aspect, the game become boring as hell.

And that's specifically the problem with defenders, they basically read "Draw your purify or stop playing the game" which is an incredibly poor choice of effect if you ask me.

Like, good lord, Gwent already lacks of interraction between players (compared to a lot of other CCG) but now they straight up make a card type that removes it altogether, what a brilliant idea.

Also, it's funny how CDPR clearly realized that overusing immune was a bad idea (which ended up by redesigning multiple card, Eredin's effect, Avallach ect) just to make a card type that virtually give immune to an entire row until it leaves the board...
See above reply... :giveup:
 
I actually disagree with your whole point.
First of all, why does everyone seems to only think about balance to establish whether or not a card is a problem? Balance is important but it's not everything.

The problem of Defenders isn't balance but design. The reason why CDPR put them in the game is because Gwent's control is too aggressive...So instead of redesigning the game to make it more playable they went for the lazy option: Make a card type that kills control.

Here's the thing though, Gwent (and every card game, for that matter) is about playing with another player, interraction is everything, this is where the fun of the game comes.

Damaging this unit so I can work towards removing it, locking that one to slows down your value, boosting this ally to put it out of range of a specific removal....That's what the game is about. If you remove that aspect, the game become boring as hell.

And that's specifically the problem with defenders, they basically read "Draw your purify or stop playing the game" which is an incredibly poor choice of effect if you ask me.

Like, good lord, Gwent already lacks of interraction between players (compared to a lot of other CCG) but now they straight up make a card type that removes it altogether, what a brilliant idea.

Also, it's funny how CDPR clearly realized that overusing immune was a bad idea (which ended up by redesigning multiple card, Eredin's effect, Avallach ect) just to make a card type that virtually give immune to an entire row until it leaves the board...
I agree, Defenders are ridiculously bad design and you give some good arguments to prove that. Defenders also mess up the idea behind Orders. Some Order cards have very strong abilities and the delayed Order effect gives the opponent a chance to counter this, providing some sort of balancing. With Defenders, these Order cards are easily protected and that's why we see NG playing Damien and Stefan with Defender to refresh leader ability and replay Bribery. Apparently CDPR don't learn from past mistakes (uninteractive and binary stuff, Immune) and even forget why they implemented certain mechanics (Order).
 

Guest 4336264

Guest
I respect your opinion. Please let me know if you continue to believe they are fine or if you change your mind on them.
Actually, the point you made about dwarves being harder to remove is certainly true. Coming up against a dwarf deck, and a defender in a round (when there's no easy way to remove the defender), makes things pretty tough going.

I only play Northern Realms because I can't be bothered with any others (probably due to coming back to the game through Thronebreaker). I hate Northern Realm decks that consist in giving units charges, spawning commandos, and then transforming them into spectres which spawn further spectres with a death kill. I personally like to play a varied deck that I find interesting. Normally, it doesn't fare very well against dedicated spawn decks, etc.

I'd prefer that most cards had a random auto trigger mechanism, instead of players being able to manually target specific cards with attacks (much like certain catapults, etc.). most of the dwarven units should only be playable on the melee row, yet they can be spawned on the ranged row and seemingly (when transformed into rowdy dwarves) engage in some sort of melee attack (this problem of cards that should be melee only pervades GWENT). The result is that using weather, or some other row effect, can easily be avoided by playing melee attack units on the ranged row. Nor should archers be playable on the melee row (if played out of position, I think they should suffer some type of penalty).

However, for me, on balance, I'd say that defenders, as they currently exist, have helped me against decks that are designed to either steal units, spawn monsters, traps, etc., better than without defenders (when the right cards are in play behind the defender).

I've found some players, particularly with a high level of 'prestige' abandon casual matches for no good reason, as far as I can tell. I guess they think they're too good to play certain players of lower rank, or who play defenders, etc. That's because most know that defenders make it harder for them to steamroller other players if used well.

Personally, I think there's too much spawning of certain types of cards; certain decks able to play and draw too many cards in one round (with help of leader abilities or otherwise); too much dependence on monsters consuming and 'thriving' (it's supposed to be warfare against an opponent, not consuming allies and 'thriving'); too much dependence on stealing other players cards (some as high as 6 points if they have the tactics), etc., etc.

I'd like to see, as stated earlier, more cards that play with a random attack element, or a one off attack - not charges, boots etc. (some bootsing is OK). For me, playing a deck where you're just dishing out charges and spawning loads of units (then boosting) is a bit rubbish - not a lot of skill involved really. At the moment, as someone stated earlier, you can look online for current strong deck (usually a spawn, steal or charge deck), and tailor your own deck accordingly.

I've lost count of the amount of decks I've encountered like the ones above. People very rarely use a novel deck that is fun to play (despite the fact it'll probably lose), because they're interested only in winning. However, if the deck is stacked in your favour, it's not much of a victory in my books. I'd like the game to require an element of skill - like chess, but with card units - probably difficult to attain.
 
If something has to change it is tutoring leaders (and maybe also pseudo-tutoring leaders in Enslavement, although I do not feel that ability is nearly as toxic as Echo, Pincer, Wild Card, Tactical Maneuver, Invigorate Call of Harmony and Eist (although Eist does not matter with SK being kind of bad and Invigorate Call of Harmony being outclassed by the completely busted Echo)).
The ability to always get 2 cards out that demand an answer in 1 turn is just too good and other leader abilities are unable to compete with that.
Tutoring leaders were fine when leaders were (in open beta) not just an extension, but a full play.

As for the people stating defenders are too problematic ... that is honestly just a symptom of the toxic tutor leaders, if you cannot put out a threat that demands an immediate answer, alongside a unit that prevents one from doing so with any card in the game, defenders will not be too problematic.

Beyond that the ability to double up on cards like Justice, Waters, as well as putting down a Portal/Vysogota with defender is just absurd.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4368268

Guest
Tutoring leaders were fine when leaders were (in open beta) not just an extension, but a full play.
The developers often mention cards that limit design space, but have done nothing with their faulty HC philosophy of playing/using your leader in the same turn as another whole play. Even though that has been at the forefront of pretty much every broken meta deck since Homecoming.

Unitless Harald, Dijkstra Townsfolk, Mystic Echo, Detlaff right after Crimson Curse, Eithne artifacts, Eredin Slyzard (even though that was never really tier 1, it still gradually led to them deleting immunity all together) and now essentially every deck revolves around who can find the most abusable leader combo. It goes completely against the concept of a turn based strategy game.

It worked great in Thronebreaker and I understand they went for it in offline, but man does it suck in Gwent Multiplayer.
Yet it's gone completely unaddressed and they keep focusing on symptoms instead of the disease. A provision left and right and they think they solve things that are fundamentally wrong with the game.

Since I namedropped provisions, I might as well add that whole system has disappointed me too. There is no consistency in how they've actually balanced cards and it's made them think too easily of their 'balance patches'. Golds/Silvers/Bronzes worked much better in my opinion. Especially in relation to leader/tutor abilities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[...]
It worked great in Thronebreaker and I understand they went for it in offline, but man does it suck in Gwent Multiplayer.
Yet it's gone completely unaddressed and they keep focusing on symptoms instead of the disease. A provision left and right and they think they solve things that are fundamentally wrong with the game.
[...]
In Thronebreaker the general powerlevel is much higher and the leader abilities are also mostly just there to trigger the loyal tag on units (at least for Meve) and regenerates over time.
That is the completely opposite of a leader being useless and doing nothing, until they use their gamebreaking 1-use ability, that shapes the entire meta.

Leaders like Detlaff (bleeding), Arachas Swarm, Morvran etc are fine, it is the 1-use tutor leaders, which are breaking the game and abusing homecomings mechanics (in a way they are like the absurd faction bonus from closed beta gwent).
 
If something has to change it is tutoring leaders (and maybe also pseudo-tutoring leaders in Enslavement, although I do not feel that ability is nearly as toxic as Echo, Pincer, Wild Card, Tactical Maneuver, Invigorate and Eist (although Eist does not matter with SK being kind of bad and Invigorate being outclassed by the completely busted Echo)).

Invigorate?? Please explain.
 
Invigorate?? Please explain.
It is a tutoring ability, I see the very concept behind them problematic (especially with the existence of Defenders, which by themselves are not a problem).
Although I did explicitly mention that Invigorate Call of Harmony is not even used because Mystic Echo is just even more busted.
I mentioned it for the sake of completion and since it meets the criteria of being problematic design.
In the end Invigorate Call of Harmony (while being restricted to an archtype and actually having a cost (unlike Pincer, Echo (kind of) etc)) is still a way of playing multiple cards in the same turn, which has, in the history of homecoming, turned out to be more and more problematic as time progressed, at this point non-tutoring leaders (except for Enslavement, which "tutors" a better Muzzle) are completely unviable if tutoring leaders are available (the only faction having none is Monsters).
In the end even Wild Card turned out to be the only really viable way of playing SY.
All competetive matches I watched further supported that in serious factions the only viable leaders are tutoring leaders.
 
Last edited:

Payus

Forum regular
It is a tutoring ability, I see the very concept behind them problematic (especially with the existence of Defenders, which by themselves are not a problem).
Although I did explicitly mention that Invigorate is not even used because Mystic Echo is just even more busted.
I mentioned it for the sake of completion and since it meets the criteria of being problematic design.
In the end Invigorate (while being restricted to an archtype and actually having a cost (unlike Pincer, Echo (kind of) etc)) is still a way of playing multiple cards in the same turn, which has, in the history of homecoming, turned out to be more and more problematic as time progressed, at this point non-tutoring leaders (except for Enslavement, which "tutors" a better Muzzle) are completely unviable if tutoring leaders are available (the only faction having none is Monsters).
In the end even Wild Card turned out to be the only really viable way of playing SY.
All competetive matches I watched further supported that in serious factions the only viable leaders are tutoring leaders.


You are confusing Invigorate(boost all units in your hand by 1) with Call of Harmony.
 
Defenders are fine, Azar is the only one over-performing.

I'm more worried about leader diversity, particularly regarding tutor leaders which have been dominating for a while now, as they both bring consistency and uninterruptible combos, and they probably should be sligthly nerfed in consequence while other leaders should be buffed.

Furthermore, some cards that were nerfed earlier this year, when the game balance was going in a totally different direction, still haven't been brought back to their former glory. Overall there are also plenty of cards/archetype that could be playable if they were sufficiently buffed, bringing once again more diversity. At last there are still a bunch of cards that are completely bland, or even borderline useless, and probably should be entirely reworked, akin to what happened to Northern Realms.

Edit: That being said I can understand how they might not want to change everything this season, because of the IOS release having a bad balance patch would reflect poorly on the game, and the current meta that you like it or not feels pretty balanced. However I sure hope the December patch is going to be a bit more juicy, and if it is, I hope it won't break the game because CDPR has a bad track record when they change too many things at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Defenders are fine, Azar is the only one over-performing.

I'm more worried about leader diversity, particularly regarding tutor leaders which have been dominating for a while now, as they both bring consistency and uninterruptible combos, and they probably should be sligthly nerfed in consequence while other leaders should be buffed.

Furthermore, some cards that were nerfed earlier this year, when the game balance was going in a totally different direction, still haven't been brought back to their former glory. Overall there are also plenty of cards/archetype that could be playable if they were sufficiently buffed, bringing once again more diversity. At last there are still a bunch of cards that are completely bland, or even borderline useless, and probably should be entirely reworked, akin to what happened to Northern Realms.

Edit: That being said I can understand how they might not want to change everything this season, because of the IOS release having a bad balance patch would reflect poorly on the game, and the current meta that you like it or not feels pretty balanced. However I sure hope the December patch is going to be a bit more juicy, and if it is, I hope it won't break the game because CDPR has a bad track record when they change too many things at the same time.

My guess is that if and when CDPR changes leaders so that they can't play two cards at once anymore people will eventually see that defenders are OP. It's just right now there are many OP cards and mechanics so people don't care as much.
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
Just played NR Pincer Maneuver (Some of) his cards played in R3: Falibor, Phillipa, Shupe Knight, One Eyed Betsy, Lambert Sword Master, Prince Anseis. tried playing swarm because traditionally that's a punishment for control. But cards like Falibor and Philippa etc. have no downside anyway, so they're always good and always find value.

And this hasn't been the first time. Even Northern Realms the historically proactive flavored faction is now just vomiting out control. I'm really sick of not this 'meta' but just this gameplay as a whole. Control has been too low risk high reward from the beginning.

One month they say they're nerfing units that do damage and the next expansion they introduce new ones to take their place. Seriously, I've played for years and I've won and lost plenty to be fine with both. But getting board wiped every other game is really frustrating.

Bring back silvers. Buff cards strength across all factions (excluding Monsters and damage oriented units) do SOMETHING. This is annoying the hell out of me I can't even imagine what a new player trying to figure out mechanics must think.

Why bother playing an archetype or something creative when you can just keyword search 'damage' and stockpile your deck with OP cards right?
 
Just played NR Pincer Maneuver (Some of) his cards played in R3: Falibor, Phillipa, Shupe Knight, One Eyed Betsy, Lambert Sword Master, Prince Anseis. tried playing swarm because traditionally that's a punishment for control. But cards like Falibor and Philippa etc. have no downside anyway, so they're always good and always find value.

And this hasn't been the first time. Even Northern Realms the historically proactive flavored faction is now just vomiting out control. I'm really sick of not this 'meta' but just this gameplay as a whole. Control has been too low risk high reward from the beginning.

One month they say they're nerfing units that do damage and the next expansion they introduce new ones to take their place. Seriously, I've played for years and I've won and lost plenty to be fine with both. But getting board wiped every other game is really frustrating.

Bring back silvers. Buff cards strength across all factions (excluding Monsters and damage oriented units) do SOMETHING. This is annoying the hell out of me I can't even imagine what a new player trying to figure out mechanics must think.

Why bother playing an archetype or something creative when you can just keyword search 'damage' and stockpile your deck with OP cards right?

All in control decks are basically just as brain dead as playing big monsters. Really sad.
 
I really wish developers would stop telling their player base that such and such is coming "soon" when it really isn't. I was told that information was coming soon back on October 31st. Over a month later is not soon people.
 
One of the fundamental mistakes the team KEEPS MAKING over a year later is how they go in deep silence for weeks, losing players in short and long term in the meantime. They need to post updates on what are they working once a week, especially when you see said player base dropping and dropping.
 
Last edited:
One of the fundamental mistakes the team KEEPS MAKING over a year later is how they go in deep silence for week, losing players in short and long term in the meantime. They need to post updates on what are they working once a week, especially when you see said player base dropping and dropping.

I'd bet a lot of money that CDPR have ZERO interest in PC/Platform Gwent and are only going to bother keeping the iOS version online. Cyberpunk's on the way.
 
Top Bottom