[Voice of the people-survey] What should the CDPR do with the "create" mechanics?

+

[Voice of the people-survey] What should the CDPR do with the "create" mechanics?


  • Total voters
    138
I also voted for leave create as it is. At first I was inclined to vote for the second option, limit create to arena etc. But then I realised the only reason I considered voting for that option was that I hope that removing create from ranked will stop other players complaining about create. I’m really really tired of reading all the create hate in the forums/reddit that I visit hoping to learn and talk about playing and enjoying Gwent. It’s not my opinion, I’m more concerned about the staleness of the meta then about create. I also want to say that I hear a lot of players that are against create cards say that ‘everybody’ in the community hates create. I’ve never seen any proof of that statement, could also be that the ones that don’t like create are the most active in giving their opinion.
 
Last edited:
Lately, I've seen users defending the Create mechanic as a means to combat net-deckers (and brain dead decks). This should not be the main reason to use Create, but rather just a positive side-effect. While Create gives more variation and flexibility, it should never become the preferred choice over consistency. Instead, Create should only fill a small gap (the flexible slots) in an existing archetype. This leads to an interesting prediction. A lot of Create cards are actually only picked because of a lack of choice (alternative) for a given archetype. When more cards are being introduced, Create might actually see a small drop in popularity because they are being replaced by cards with more synergy.
 
Recently I happened to listen to a card designer. He pointed out how RNG effects are there to fix the matchmaking dilemma. Pairing players with different skillset can result in a poor experience for both parts involved. Losing a series of games in a row to a stronger opponent can be unsettling and winning them, if there is no challenge involved, is not particularly rewarding.
Increasing the level of random effects helps closing the skill gap. As the outcome is influenced by RNG, a player with a weak deck (or simply less experienced) can still squeeze out a victory. As the skill gap among different players is reduced, is easier for the matchmaking algorithm to find a suitable opponent for a given player.

The downside of increased randomness added to the game for a player like Lifecoach is to have his win rate reduced and his experience influenced by the “noise” of those random effects.

The downside for a player like me is different. After 3-5 games that I usually play each day, I would like to close Gwent with the feeling of having learned something. A new combo? Maybe a way of playing around those damned Dun Banner? But when I face high RNG cards I leave the game empty-handed: I learned that my opponent can highroll Uma into Isengrim into Runestone into that Lock or Weather Clear he/she needed. That’s brings us to a second issue. Create chains are long and boring to witness from the opposing side.

Plus the “create” choice will allow the players to fish for the cards that are at their strongest during a given meta. In fact, you might have to face a flexible card like Barclay Els a second time, and with the addition of the resurrect potential, a third time. Having the opportunity to create a strong card will increase the chances of seeing said cards. I bring you the following example: you add 3 half-elf to your deck plus 3 scouts, that can in principle give you additional 3 other half-elf. So if a card is overtuned, you’ll have to face it far more often with a mechanic such as create.
So I would argue that "create" is not bringing us more variation and the game can become stale as soon as you figure out not to pick Wardancer with the Scout. There are other ways to introduce flexibility into the game, for example having a 3-5 card sidebar.

Many streamers where thrilled and enthusiastic of having additional RNG added to Gwent. The playerbase knew better and, eventually, said streamers had to reconsider.




 
sfruzz;n10739561 said:
Increasing the level of random effects helps closing the skill gap.

Or just the opposite when you're having bad luck and are facing a stronger opponent and/or deck. This means the argument used by the card designer doesn't really work. All it does is create a bigger variance, for better or worse.
 
they shouldn't do anything with create or anything else until the buggy mess that is xbox play is fixed. that should be the only getting any urgency or priority
 
4RM3D;n10735911 said:
Lately, I've seen users defending the Create mechanic as a means to combat net-deckers (and brain dead decks). This should not be the main reason to use Create, but rather just a positive side-effect. While Create gives more variation and flexibility, it should never become the preferred choice over consistency. Instead, Create should only fill a small gap (the flexible slots) in an existing archetype. This leads to an interesting prediction. A lot of Create cards are actually only picked because of a lack of choice (alternative) for a given archetype. When more cards are being introduced, Create might actually see a small drop in popularity because they are being replaced by cards with more synergy.

Personally I have been using every thing I can think of to beat these brain dead net decks without having to play a different net deck myself, if that means I have to make a whole deck out of create to beat them then so be it.
 
4RM3D;n10741721 said:
Or just the opposite when you're having bad luck and are facing a stronger opponent and/or deck. This means the argument used by the card designer doesn't really work. All it does is create a bigger variance, for better or worse.

I have to disagree. When I have bad luck and I face an stronger opponent / deck, that's a game I would lose anyway. But with luck on my side, I can win a "lost" match. Consider the following example...

Imagine of having two players A and B, where their respective skill is represented by a constant. Now we add to the skill of the two players an independent random value.The winner is determined by comparing the sum of skill and random numbers. We repeat the process n time and compute the winrate of the two players.

If the "skill constant" is high and the random value we add is small, then the winrate is going to be skewed ed in favor of a given player. As soon as the random contribution is increased, the winrate of the two players will start getting closer. Eventually the winrate of the two players evens out, as randomness dominates the outcome of the game.

The higher the importance of the random contribution is on the outcome of a game, the closer we get to a coinflip situation.


 
sfruzz;n10748981 said:
I have to disagree. When I have bad luck and I face an stronger opponent / deck, that's a game I would lose anyway. But with luck on my side, I can win a "lost" match.

I see your point. It does present the loosing side an interesting choice. If you know you cannot normally catch up, you might as well go all in and play risky, which includes high-rolling randoms.
 
I have got a lot of fun with this mechanic although I understand the controversy. I think that the best way is to find a balance between extreme randomness and repetitive play, so I'd like it to stay in competitive in a restrained way.
 
Last edited:
BAD Create in video :

Why only 1 Faction can't play create Card and why 2 factions can Abuse Create Card ?
It's UNFAIR.



 
4RM3D;n10735911 said:
Lately, I've seen users defending the Create mechanic as a means to combat net-deckers (and brain dead decks). This should not be the main reason to use Create, but rather just a positive side-effect. While Create gives more variation and flexibility, it should never become the preferred choice over consistency. Instead, Create should only fill a small gap (the flexible slots) in an existing archetype. This leads to an interesting prediction. A lot of Create cards are actually only picked because of a lack of choice (alternative) for a given archetype. When more cards are being introduced, Create might actually see a small drop in popularity because they are being replaced by cards with more synergy.

I can second this with a specific example. I use Whispering Hillock in a Deathwish deck of my own creation which does not run Nekkers, mostly because it is not focused on using consume to trigger the Deathwishes. This makes the Arache Queen a less than ideal leader for me, Dagon does not seem good to me without the weather support and Unseen Elder while situationally powerful is also highly predictable.

This leaves me with Hillock as my leader of choice and I have had alot of good results with it mostly by realizing that its card pool includes alot of removal. Manticore Venom, Madroeme and its silver counterpart (cant remember), Parasite and so on. The greatests swings I get is not by randomly tossing it out and just seeing what options I get, but by waiting until I have specific targets on the board I might want to remove/weaken.

While not directly synergetic with my deck it is the leader that has helped me the most and a removal of it from Ranked would severily weaken the deck overall.
 
With Harald in ranked, in my first losing streak, out of 10 losses, in 8 (!!!) my opponent pulled random weather clears, sometimes more than once. It's insane how consistently they can give you a counter that was never in your deck in the first place.

while there are archetypes that are only halfway there and lack interesting options, I see create being played in the top tier decks mostly. Alchemy might not have a good bronze to set up a mahakam ale apart from SD so that will definitely need a new card, but don't tell me there is no option for elven swarm other than elven scout and runestones, because there is a ton of options. The reason people still USE Elven scout and Runestones is that they have realized, like I did recently, how consistent they are and how even on the worst case scenario they are worth the slot too much to ever leave for something a bit more standard.
 
Well, part of the reason people run create cards is precisely that possibility - that they can give you a counter that was never in your deck in the first place. Still, the opponent drawing some niche but extremely impactful cards is a very miserable experience. Elven Scout into Vrihedd Brigade is one of the worst possible feelings in Gwent. Black Blood into Ekimmara eating an Elven Trapper's bomb isn't that bad since it's just countering one card, but weather clear counters entire archetypes.

I don't know how to fix this. Removing weather clear cards from the create pool is a fix, but it sounds very ad hoc.
 
Jeydra;n10785151 said:
Well, part of the reason people run create cards is precisely that possibility - that they can give you a counter that was never in your deck in the first place. Still, the opponent drawing some niche but extremely impactful cards is a very miserable experience. Elven Scout into Vrihedd Brigade is one of the worst possible feelings in Gwent. Black Blood into Ekimmara eating an Elven Trapper's bomb isn't that bad since it's just countering one card, but weather clear counters entire archetypes.

I don't know how to fix this. Removing weather clear cards from the create pool is a fix, but it sounds very ad hoc.

Personally I would argue the best way to fix create, sort of, is more restricted pools. If that means removing the bronze create cards then so be it.

I talked a bit about the Whispering Hillock further up and I consider it one of the better create cards. Why? The pool it draws from is the Bronze and Silver Organic pool which is dominated by various damage and weaken cards with a few outliers like Monster Nest. Basically once Hillock is played both player and opponent will likely expect a damage card of some kind to come out which means that there is a certain degree of playing around it for both players. The one playing it likely does not want to play it until the board is ripe for removal of some kind while the opponent should expect some kind of removal to come out with the card.

Now one cant say what kind of removal it will be, but you at least have an idea of what is about to happen.

On the opposite end when the Scoi'tail create a bronze unit not in their deck it can be pretty much anything between heaven and earth. Even something as simple as limiting it to a type of Scoi unit (Soldier, Elf, Support) would make it less random, but also have less of the cases where the player gets the exact card needed.

TLDR
Limit create pools using the tags to make create cards more predictable for both sides and removing some of the extreme case scenarios. Maybe remove bronze create cards entirely (perhaps except Doppler since it is not 2 bodies).
 
Top Bottom