Was Gwent designed incorrectly? Engines vs. Removal

[StrykerxS77x]

From my memory when closed beta launched the game didn't have much removal. Alzurs thunder was the big removal play that you hoped to have to disrupt your opponent. So the game was more about sequencing your engines correctly to get the most points and then disrupting your opponent with your 1 or 2 removal plays. I feel like this was the way to go with the game. I think it was a mistake to throw so much removal in the game that you can literally remove every card your opponent plays or at the very least you can destroy any threatening engine your opponent plays. These decks are easy to make and completely shutdown SO many other decks in the game. I feel like this was the wrong direction to take the game. I wish the game stuck with only a few good removal plays.

Thoughts?

 

[Mr_Mugglez]

Far too many removal cards. Lesson not learned from the Eithne (removal) deck experience. There are more damage/lock/reset (negative) cards than boost (positive effect) cards.

 

[nedders]

Personally think EVERY card EXCEPT for those that cause removal or locks should be increased in STR by at least 2, possibly 3, to at least give you a decent point advantage should your tempo be stopped. So you play, say, Avallach, oppo plays crap bronze lock card, you're at least still 4 points better off instead of just 2.

Far too much emphasis on countering, via removal/lock. Something drastic needs to be done.

 

[OG.laloquaint]

There is waaaaay too much removal at the moment, that's for sure. Especially cause most of it is really cheap and gives a nice trade-off when it comes to provision cost. There's is almost no point in playing an engine deck because those cards will hardly ever get any value when you go up against a removal-heavy deck. I've noticed that cards that get you immediate value are always just better in general versus a card with Orders. In my opinion, a lot of cards with orders should have a deploy ability just so they at least get some value before they inevitably die.

A great example is Prince Anseis and Seltrik. Prince Anseis is just a much better version of Seltrik that can be used in both rows, has formation and is much more versatile. The card just costs one more provision and needs to be boosted in order for him to duel an enemy but that condition is so easily met that it doesn't affect the card all that much. Seltrik is a row-locked unit that can only really get value if you trigger his ability in the same turn. He is much less likely to survive due to this. Another example is Coral. Before Zeal, she barely saw any play and now everyone uses her because she gets you immediate value.

If CDPR buffed engines with orders, by giving them formation or something like that, then they wouldn't have to nerf every removal card in the game. Hopefully they're able to find a solution because removal is just crazy atm, but I wouldn't want engines getting out of hand neither.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

There is waaaaay too much removal at the moment, that's for sure. Especially cause most of it is really cheap and gives a nice trade-off when it comes to provision cost. There's is almost no point in playing an engine deck because those cards will hardly ever get any value when you go up against a removal-heavy deck. I've noticed that cards that get you immediate value are always just better in general versus a card with Orders. In my opinion, a lot of cards with orders should have a deploy ability just so they at least get some value before they inevitably die.

A great example is Prince Anseis and Seltrik. Prince Anseis is just a much better version of Seltrik that can be used in both rows, has formation and is much more versatile. The card just costs one more provision and needs to be boosted in order for him to duel an enemy but that condition is so easily met that it doesn't affect the card all that much. Seltrik is a row-locked unit that can only really get value if you trigger his ability in the same turn. He is much less likely to survive due to this. Another example is Coral. Before Zeal, she barely saw any play and now everyone uses her because she gets you immediate value.

If CDPR buffed engines with orders, by giving them formation or something like that, then they wouldn't have to nerf every removal card in the game. Hopefully they're able to find a solution because removal is just crazy atm, but I wouldn't want engines getting out of hand neither.

I honestly don't think engines becoming dominant would be a bad thing. That's because removal would still be needed. Removal wouldn't become obsolete just because engines are strong and tough to remove.

 

[thetruerenter]

The art of gaining more power points then your opponent has disappeared. The current lvl of the game don't require much brain. Was it bad designed? The beta was unique as a game. This version of Gwent looks rather like a bad copy of Hearthstone.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from, but for the life of me I can't.

1. Removal was a huge part of the beta Gwent. Triss fireball came with original deck, and I became truly competitive when I finally got enough scraps to get igni (800 wasn't easy to come by for a beginner in those days.) Reveal had power swaps and all sorts of ways to screw with your opponent. Scorch was always there too. The most successful decks were always either removal or engines (like carry forward resilience, armor boosting, etc...) If the game was only played on one side of the board it would get boring and be totally about card draw.

2. The reason we have so much removal is that every faction has too many engines. NR and MO are built around them (thrive is very much an engine approach.) ST had 3 types now they have 5. It used to be handbuffing, racial synergy (Milva, and the dwarves who boost based on dwarves for example.) Add in the movement based engines of matron and tree boar and let's not forget the units who if boosted either gain extra or keep boosting themselves. NG and SK have plenty as well. If you take out removal then all you have left is unchecked engines.

3. What you should be troubled by is the lack of unique approaches to the game. Spying is dumbed down to the point where outside of dutchess informant it is either all RNG (canterella,) or all basic boosting. Reveal is RNG, ambush is now trap which is vastly inferior from a startegy perspective. Armor is gone, resilience is a bad joke rarely seen, and the other truly interesting archetypes are either dead, on life support, or living but with deformities. CC is helping a little, but it is imbalanced and poorly tested (NG can get 1000 assimilate pings in 30 matches in seasonal.)

In conclusion, Gwent is vastly inferior to beta Gwent. Gwent is over run with engines, which forces an over run of removal. Try running a game with a friend where you agree not to remove and see what happens. Try playing monsters point slam where you basically can't remove and see what happens. For this game to recover it needs 4 things. New factions. Faction identities (unique ways for each faction to play which results in games feeling fresh and different.) Less neutral cards and more focus on unique faction specific cards. Finally a rebalancing of the factions to make all five competitive at the highest ranks. I have said it before and I will say it again, getting to pro rank is disappointing because once their playing is like watching reruns of old sitcoms. Never anything new.

 

[4RM3D]

From my memory when closed beta launched the game didn't have much removal. Alzurs thunder was the big removal play that you hoped to have to disrupt your opponent. So the game was more about sequencing your engines correctly to get the most points and then disrupting your opponent with your 1 or 2 removal plays.

In beta, engines were rarely played, except Craiteswords, because they lacked tempo. Furthermore, Thunder could easily be pulled using one of the many tutors available. Tempo plays and the abundance of tutors were two of the problems in beta. So, comparing the situation to beta is not really useful, in this case.

As for removal, it's not a problem in itself. It's more complicated than that. You have the rock-paper-scissors meta where value decks beat removal decks, which beats engine beats, which beats value decks. But even that is a pretty crude way to look at things.

The thing about removal is that it's basically a tug of war. You usually want to run at least a few removal cards, just in case the opponent slaps down a game changer. However, the opponent can bait out removal, especially when (s)he thinks the deck doesn't run enough removal. Herein lies the key. You need enough engines to counter removal and you need enough removal to counter engines. The balance therein is dictated by the meta and this balance has been out of whack for a while now because some Order or engine cards have too much swing value to be left alone and almost everyone fear those, hence the inclusion of some (extra) removal.

 

[BoYoDes]

The game needs to be balanced to get new factions first. I can only imagine another mess added to the already existin one. It needs to be balanced in the part of Damage and in the part of Engines. Like I've said before - there was a reason Bronze cards in Beta were limited to do so much damage and only Alzur's Thunder was on par with Silver/Gold removal. But it was/is a card without a body (that was until the Elven mercenaries were made Loyal). And it was for a reason - IT IS A BRONZE CARD. Bronze cards should not 1 hit remove almost anything.

... and than there's the Orders stacking steamroll problem...

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from, but for the life of me I can't.

1. Removal was a huge part of the beta Gwent. Triss fireball came with original deck, and I became truly competitive when I finally got enough scraps to get igni (800 wasn't easy to come by for a beginner in those days.) Reveal had power swaps and all sorts of ways to screw with your opponent. Scorch was always there too. The most successful decks were always either removal or engines (like carry forward resilience, armor boosting, etc...) If the game was only played on one side of the board it would get boring and be totally about card draw.

2. The reason we have so much removal is that every faction has too many engines. NR and MO are built around them (thrive is very much an engine approach.) ST had 3 types now they have 5. It used to be handbuffing, racial synergy (Milva, and the dwarves who boost based on dwarves for example.) Add in the movement based engines of matron and tree boar and let's not forget the units who if boosted either gain extra or keep boosting themselves. NG and SK have plenty as well. If you take out removal then all you have left is unchecked engines.

3. What you should be troubled by is the lack of unique approaches to the game. Spying is dumbed down to the point where outside of dutchess informant it is either all RNG (canterella,) or all basic boosting. Reveal is RNG, ambush is now trap which is vastly inferior from a startegy perspective. Armor is gone, resilience is a bad joke rarely seen, and the other truly interesting archetypes are either dead, on life support, or living but with deformities. CC is helping a little, but it is imbalanced and poorly tested (NG can get 1000 assimilate pings in 30 matches in seasonal.)

In conclusion, Gwent is vastly inferior to beta Gwent. Gwent is over run with engines, which forces an over run of removal. Try running a game with a friend where you agree not to remove and see what happens. Try playing monsters point slam where you basically can't remove and see what happens. For this game to recover it needs 4 things. New factions. Faction identities (unique ways for each faction to play which results in games feeling fresh and different.) Less neutral cards and more focus on unique faction specific cards. Finally a rebalancing of the factions to make all five competitive at the highest ranks. I have said it before and I will say it again, getting to pro rank is disappointing because once their playing is like watching reruns of old sitcoms. Never anything new.

Well thanks for chiming in because you are jogging my old person memory on beta Gwent. Igni was around and got nerfed and changed multiple times.

I'm not suggesting the game only be played on one side of the board all of the time sort of like old consume monsters. I am suggesting that there shouldn't be this much strong removal in the game. I still think cards should be able to do stuff to the other side of the board. Just not easily wipe everything.

I can't agree on the idea of too many engines. Building your deck on generating as much points as possible is fun. That should be encouraged by the game. I think removal should most certainly exist in the game but it should feel important, not a dime a dozen. I like the idea of choosing carefully what I want to remove off my opponents board instead of "well it doesn't' matter if I remove it now or not because I have enough to take care of everything my opponent plays".

I completely agree with your other critiques of the game. I can rant for a long time about them as well as I have in other threads.

Post automatically merged: Apr 2, 2019

In beta, engines were rarely played, except Craiteswords, because they lacked tempo. Furthermore, Thunder could easily be pulled using one of the many tutors available. Tempo plays and the abundance of tutors were two of the problems in beta. So, comparing the situation to beta is not really useful, in this case.

I was referring to early Gwent before there even was a tutor for Alzurs. Edit: So I looked back and there was elven mercenary cards but they played a random special card from your deck. So I guess you could build to use it for Alzurs if you built the deck carefully. There was still much less removal in the game.

As for removal, it's not a problem in itself. It's more complicated than that. You have the rock-paper-scissors meta where value decks beat removal decks, which beats engine beats, which beats value decks. But even that is a pretty crude way to look at things.

I'm not even sure if value decks can even beat some of the current removal decks. I doubt it.

The thing about removal is that it's basically a tug of war. You usually want to run at least a few removal cards, just in case the opponent slaps down a game changer. However, the opponent can bait out removal, especially when (s)he thinks the deck doesn't run enough removal. Herein lies the key. You need enough engines to counter removal and you need enough removal to counter engines. The balance therein is dictated by the meta and this balance has been out of whack for a while now because some Order or engine cards have too much swing value to be left alone and almost everyone fear those, hence the inclusion of some (extra) removal.

How do you bait out removal from a deck that has almost nothing but removal?

 

[Wonderboy8700]

Well thanks for chiming in because you are jogging my old person memory on beta Gwent. Igni was around and got nerfed and changed multiple times.

I'm not suggesting the game only be played on one side of the board all of the time sort of like old consume monsters. I am suggesting that there shouldn't be this much strong removal in the game. I still think cards should be able to do stuff to the other side of the board. Just not easily wipe everything.

I can't agree on the idea of too many engines. Building your deck on generating as much points as possible is fun. That should be encouraged by the game. I think removal should most certainly exist in the game but it should feel important, not a dime a dozen. I like the idea of choosing carefully what I want to remove off my opponents board instead of "well it doesn't' matter if I remove it now or not because I have enough to take care of everything my opponent plays".

I completely agree with your other critiques of the game. I can rant for a long time about them as well as I have in other threads.

Post automatically merged: Apr 2, 2019

I was referring to early Gwent before there even was a tutor for Alzurs.



I'm not even sure if value decks can even beat some of the current removal decks. I doubt it.



How do you bait out removal from a deck that has almost nothing but removal?

The problem is without strong removal you will both be building your deck on that principal. At which point it comes down to 3 factors. 1, which faction has the advantage at point stacking. 2, which players gets more value cards on draw. 3, which player goes first.

@4RM3D, engines were very common. Weather was a removal engine that hit every unit on a row. Resilience engines and armor engines where to of the biggest methods used by ST and NR. To be honest it has been so long that I am drawing blanks on specifics, but I remember every faction having some kind of perpetual point system.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

The problem is without strong removal you will both be building your deck on that principal. At which point it comes down to 3 factors. 1, which faction has the advantage at point stacking. 2, which players gets more value cards on draw. 3, which player goes first.

@4RM3D, engines were very common. Weather was a removal engine that hit every unit on a row. Resilience engines and armor engines where to of the biggest methods used by ST and NR. To be honest it has been so long that I am drawing blanks on specifics, but I remember every faction having some kind of perpetual point system.

Well if the factions had strong identity with some of their abilities the game would still feel different and fresh between them. I'm not really seeing the problem in limiting removal. I see bigger problems in removal being this prevalent.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

Well if the factions had strong identity with some of their abilities the game would still feel different and fresh between them. I'm not really seeing the problem in limiting removal. I see bigger problems in removal being this prevalent.

At present limiting removal would likely mean NR would run wild. Anna and the count would single handedly dominate. The only way to limit removal at this point is to cut all the engines by at least half, probably more. Maybe one point every 3rd turn.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

At present limiting removal would likely mean NR would run wild. Anna and the count would single handedly dominate. The only way to limit removal at this point is to cut all the engines by at least half, probably more. Maybe one point every 3rd turn.

The game would need a big overhall for sure.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

The game would need a big overhall for sure.

Given how well midwinter and homecoming went, at least we have the right team for such an overhaul

 

[4RM3D]

How do you bait out removal from a deck that has almost nothing but removal?

You don't. With those kind of decks, your paper is going to be cut by scissors. However, not everyone runs full removal, but almost everyone runs some removal.

engines were very common. Weather was a removal engine that hit every unit on a row. Resilience engines and armor engines where to of the biggest methods used by ST and NR.

Weather and resilience, I do not count as engines. The carry-over from dwarfs is a different issue. Weather is a bit more complicated and requires a thread of its own to be properly discussed. But I'll say that the later iterations of weather usually only worked because of tutors and the original version just wrecked everything. Lastly, I forgot about NR armor. It was a viable deck, until it got nerfed. Either way, it only ran 2 engines, which only worked because the armor was protecting them.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

You don't. With those kind of decks, your paper is going to be cut by scissors. However, not everyone runs full removal, but almost everyone runs some removal.



Weather and resilience, I do not count as engines. The carry-over from dwarfs is a different issue. Weather is a bit more complicated and requires a thread of its own to be properly discussed. But I'll say that the later iterations of weather usually only worked because of tutors and the original version just wrecked everything. Lastly, I forgot about NR armor. It was a viable deck, until it got nerfed. Either way, it only ran 2 engines, which only worked because the armor was protecting them.

Do you by any chance know of an archive where the earlier versions of the cards are available. I would love to compare and contrast against the various updates.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Easy: Buff engines by increasing their health and provision cost. Only locks are the issue. However, lock meta lacks tempo, and is weak against value/Hybrid. If we have equal distribution of stones, paper and scissors, we are good to go.

But wait, what am I saying, we recently got shields, lets try and see how it works out.
On the other hand: Other factions need engines too and a way to protect them. So changes should only be implemented as devs roll out more engines, until devs realise that nobody is playing them, which will give them incentitive to solve this problem, like the recent overnerf of Unicorn and Chiro. Ifrit and Regis bloodthirst are next, dont you worry.

 

[Wonderboy8700]

Easy: Buff engines by increasing their health and provision cost. Only locks are the issue. However, lock meta lacks tempo, and is weak against value/Hybrid. If we have equal distribution of stones, paper and scissors, we are good to go.

But wait, what am I saying, we recently got shields, lets try and see how it works out.
On the other hand: Other factions need engines too and a way to protect them. So changes should only be implemented as devs roll out more engines, until devs realise that nobody is playing them, which will give them incentitive to solve this problem, like the recent overnerf of Unicorn and Chiro. Ifrit and Regis bloodthirst are next, dont you worry.

You really think we need more engines. If engines were an ocean we would be swimming in them. You want to weakens removal simply abolish orders.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Do you by any chance know of an archive where the earlier versions of the cards are available. I would love to compare and contrast against the various updates.

https://gwent.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Cards_history

The above has card histories. I can't speak to the accuracy though.