What is "game balance", in a cardgame like Gwent - OP cards, comboes, balance etc is NOT the main thing

+
So, I was thinking before about OP cards is what balance is about, but it's not truly about OP cards:
Well, there is all that, and then there is a game which is balanced well relative to itself, meaning cards relative to each others, which is generally something the game seems to aim at, relatively speaking.

I never said anything about every deck being able to beat every other deck. I'm speaking about well balanced cards that maximise the strategic aspect of the game, while feeling like a fair game and well balanced, relatively speaking. I know it's a complex game, but it's certainly possible.

So, this was off topic on a thread about a pretty good deck at the moment, and I was thinking to balance the game, you have to balance OP cards and comboes. Someone said it is impossible. I ended the topic there by saying:

Well fine, let's not talk about it here. But just think about Muirlega and Etriel vs Unicorn and Chironex.
Anyways, to finish this on something slightly relevant, Caranthir, belongs to the category, inherently because of what he does.

Both are ofcourse correct, but that's not the true core of how to balance a complex game like Gwent. Muirlega and Etriel IS OP compared to Unicorn and Chironex, or U/C is underpowered compared to M/E. But does fixing OP cards balance the game?
Many people complain about all kind of cards and comboes in this game (and rightly so), but often it comes down to gold replay (including leader replay) and cards that generally see too much value. This is not the true problem or the solution.

I started playing anti-meta decks based on poison due to my perception there is something wrong. And now I went on to Skellige scenario. Ofcourse, many people can say there is something inherently wrong with scenario and that it's OP, and they are probably right. However, this is not the core of the problem or the solution.

The true problem is how some decks, comboes and OP cards etc etc makes MOST other decks unviable, this is the true lack of balance
. It could be due to the cards themselves being OP or comboes or whatever, but essentially it is about how some decks make most decks unviable. This is a true shame, because playing Gwent should be about making good decks from good cards and have them work well. Sadly, this is not possible. Even making good decks out of good cards is unviable due to certain cards, decks and comboes that restrict ALL of Gwent to having to use those cards, comboes or decks to have a strong deck.

To find true balance for Gwent is about finding a way to make as many decks as possible viable and strong. I am not talking about haphazardly throwing together a deck, but conciously building a good deck from good cards. Generally some cards narrow down or restrict viable decks to only a few minor differences instead of a wide range of possibilities. You may say this is due to OP cards, comboes etc, but it is actually due to a range of factors, including those. For example, most people consider Stefan Skellen an OP card, but in fact it is not. It is a card that puts 5 points on the table and if it survives until order can be executed it can REPLAY the LAST TACTIC card played DURING THIS ROUND. That's ALOT of restrictions, requiring this card to have alot of setup, and also be played at a risk (order). If you look at the list of tactic cards, the isolated ability of Skellen with the risk and the setup is not really OP at all. At BEST you can get good value, on average decent value, but often poor (4p bronze tactic) or no value.

It is like that with alot of things in this game, yet ALOT of decks run Skellen, why is this? The deck is NOT just Skellen, it is MANY things, neither is Damien seen in isolation as a single card overpowered. So what is the issue? It is the way this deck works in general. Anyhow, it is considered tier2 or tier3, not tier1. It is a strong deck in it's various forms.

Anyways, Skellige Scenario and poison made me realize just how dominant SOME decks are and can be. When very few other decks can beat a particular deck, that's when the imbalance is formed, and this is the true balance problem. Yes, sure, in the case of Skellige scenario, that is due to the single card, but scenario decks aren't the only decks that dominate the meta of this game, alot of decks do. But when you look at all those decks, they are based around many of the same cards and the same ways of playing and what not. I don't know it all and I don't really have the true answer. But I did realize lack of balance is about many of the things already mentioned, but in particular it is when deck building is highly restricted and narrowed down.

A good and true balance is when there are "endless" options and the widest possible variety decks are viable and good.
Gwent consists of alot of cards, but only a few seems to dominate.
 
To find true balance for Gwent is about finding a way to make as many decks as possible viable and strong.
A good and true balance is when there are "endless" options and the widest possible variety decks are viable and good. Gwent consists of alot of cards, but only a few seems to dominate.

Easier said than done. More importantly, while I understand your reasoning, I disagree with your statement that as many decks should be made viable. I would rephrase it to: "enough decks should be made viable". Because if you want to go for as many, you will become to limited in the number of combos you can create.

Also, you've made an interesting remark: "Gwent consists of alot of cards, but only a few seems to dominate". I'll get to that in a bit.

The true problem is how some decks, comboes and OP cards etc etc makes MOST other decks unviable, this is the true lack of balance.

And here we get to the core of the problem. Except it's not actually the core, the roots go deeper than this. The reason why you cannot make as many decks viable is because of the rock-paper-scissors dilemma. You can nerf some of the dominating decks, but then they will be replaced by other, potentially more toxic, decks. Combos should inherently be stronger because they are more risky to play. However, the meta dictates how many of these combos remain viable. And it's in this notion that the shit hits the fan.

To understand this, we need to look not at the decks or factions that dominate the meta, but, instead, look at the type of decks (i.e. rock-paper-scissors). The meta usually starts with value decks (rock). Decks that go for points per card, without specific synergies. Then those decks evolve to combo decks (paper). To counter these, control decks (scissors) are made and then other value decks start to emerge to "counter" these control decks, thus completing the cycle.

The reason why it's impossible to balance cards is because of this (meta) cycle. There is one extremely important thing to consider here. Most of the time people look at which cards/combos are OP, while they should be looking at which cards counter the meta. These counter cards are not necessarily OP, but are needed to keep the meta in check. It's not even that they need to be played. But rather the knowledge those cards existence and the fear that players may be running them is already enough. One example of this is having cheap artifact removal available in an artifact-heavy meta. When artifacts fall off, artifact removal does too. This, however, doesn't need to be rebalanced because the meta will sort itself out. If artifact removal falls off too, artifacts might come back, leading to the conclusion:

A truly balanced game has an ever-changing meta, alternating between value (rock), engines/combos (paper) and control (scissors) decks.
 
Easier said than done. More importantly, while I understand your reasoning, I disagree with your statement that as many decks should be made viable. I would rephrase it to: "enough decks should be made viable". Because if you want to go for as many, you will become to limited in the number of combos you can create.

Also, you've made an interesting remark: "Gwent consists of alot of cards, but only a few seems to dominate". I'll get to that in a bit.



And here we get to the core of the problem. Except it's not actually the core, the roots go deeper than this. The reason why you cannot make as many decks viable is because of the rock-paper-scissors dilemma. You can nerf some of the dominating decks, but then they will be replaced by other, potentially more toxic, decks. Combos should inherently be stronger because they are more risky to play. However, the meta dictates how many of these combos remain viable. And it's in this notion that the shit hits the fan.

To understand this, we need to look not at the decks or factions that dominate the meta, but, instead, look at the type of decks (i.e. rock-paper-scissors). The meta usually starts with value decks (rock). Decks that go for points per card, without specific synergies. Then those decks evolve to combo decks (paper). To counter these, control decks (scissors) are made and then other value decks start to emerge to "counter" these control decks, thus completing the cycle.

The reason why it's impossible to balance cards is because of this (meta) cycle. There is one extremely important thing to consider here. Most of the time people look at which cards/combos are OP, while they should be looking at which cards counter the meta. These counter cards are not necessarily OP, but are needed to keep the meta in check. It's not even that they need to be played. But rather the knowledge those cards existence and the fear that players may be running them is already enough. One example of this is having cheap artifact removal available in an artifact-heavy meta. When artifacts fall off, artifact removal does too. This, however, doesn't need to be rebalanced because the meta will sort itself out. If artifact removal falls off too, artifacts might come back, leading to the conclusion:

A truly balanced game has an ever-changing meta, alternating between value (rock), engines/combos (paper) and control (scissors) decks.

It's only easier said than done if you've no experience with things such as statistical analysis and have no experience with CCGs/TCGs.

Want a great, recent example of a combo that's completely unreasonable? Syanna+Vernon is a 4 card power play that can either be done in 1 turn with Pincer Manuver and/or can be protected via Donimir. And unlike some op combos, this one is super, super consistent and only requires 1 card+leader ability to go off.

I appreciate the effort the devs have put into Gwent but realistically, the scenario is like a bunch of toddlers performing neurosurgery and while there's blatant improvement in the way they're started handling things, we're a far ways away from a realistically balanced game. Part of the issue is they keep pooling on new control cards without adding more options to mitigate control, control being defined as self contained cards that damage, banish, poison or seize a unit or an engine which builds up it's own points while removing points from the opponent.

The other part is that the devs aren't really considering frustration as a variable. If your game is frustrating, people are less likely to enjoy - and thus, play it.

And I think we can all agree frustration mostly comes from having all of your cards removed in some way, creating a boring, binary game state. Kind of like how unitless decks created a boring, unfun game state. Additionally seizing is extremely frustrating as a mechanic because it's the best kind of removal combined with the most extreme kind of point swing. That alone is a huge balance issue outside of cards like Muzzle, where the provision cost is so high that it actively deters using the card (-2 provision efficiency, if not more). Seizing can also be compared to theft directly as they're ultimately the same thing, ignoring the context of real life and a video game match - and thus creates similar emotional responses; anger, frustration, rage, etc.

This might seem a bit critical - and it is but without direct feedback how can we expect the devs to change their approach?
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
In theory, i think 4RM3D is right, regarding the rock-paper-scissors analogy, of pointslam - engine - control.

At some point, Gwent might have been like that, but i think combos and strategy were reduced and nerfed, so that now the meta is dominated by cards that:
1) work individually, no combo needed
2) are very powerful, obviously
3) are incredibly versatile, working on short rounds or long ones, and regardless of the style your opponent adopts (this characteristic is obviously boosted by point 1)

Risk was pratically removed from the game, at least in top tier decks, and when all you see are top tier decks, regardless of the rank... well, you get bored. And frustrated. Because its incredibly hard, if not impossible, to be original and counter meta decks that you already know what will be used.
 
A truly balanced game has an ever-changing meta, alternating between value (rock), engines/combos (paper) and control (scissors) decks.

Well, I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think I already knew this from our other interaction about this topic.

I don't like the idea of a traveling meta and an inherent lack of balance. I happen to think there IS a balance point and there always has been, but there are deviations to this, weaknesses in the game, some cards that are OP, some comboes the developers didn't consider and sometimes a lack of mechanics or use of mechanics to address "issues", which you refer to as the ever changing meta.

The problem with ever changing meta and a lack of "core" value, is that eventually many other cards become irrelevant and invaluable.

This might not make much sense, but about a year ago I had the impression the number 5 was relevant for Gwent, and kind of a central number in the game, and cards built around that in various ways. In my impression that has changed to 6 and is slowly changing towards 7 (maybe). All cards that still operate at "5" is slowly becoming irrelevant.

In my impression "meta decks" is in actuality decks that exploit weaknesses in the meta, overpowered cards and mechanics that are somewhat unbalanced or not functioning properly.

Take my most current deck for example, self built ofcourse, but around the defect Skellige Scenario situation where you can play the whole scenario in one go. Only a few people know what is truly going on while I try to win round 1, bleed round 2 and use whatever cards I can afford, while building up to that one busted move. It is an assault on the intelligence of the opponent and the whole deck is based around a defect mechanic, but if it plays out somewhat as I planned, I win the game short round 3. Opponent have no possible counter, even if they have bomb heaver at hand. It is unfair, and it must feel unfair as well, so this deck should be generally frustrating.

It is just an example, there are other decks like that as well ofcourse, but this is the kind of thing you have to resort to now. Just building a good deck from good cards with possible synergies and so fourth is not really viable, you have to build OP, and it shouldn't be like that. Good cards in a good deck should be competitive.

Interesting you mention the meta, I will mention my witcher deck, which was mostly a gimmick deck, but since it had alot of good cards and could do alot of powerful thing, it was actually quite competitive. Now? Current meta, it's trash, it's just weak, can't keep up. Still good cards, and I still know how to play it optimally, it just doesn't work out well against the "powercreep".
 
I don't like the idea of a traveling meta and an inherent lack of balance.

With my previous post, I didn't say developers can get sloppy because the meta will sort itself out. Quite the opposite, cards need to be balanced even more. However, it should be done while looking at the current meta and identifying oppressive decks that get too much value. The idea is to avoid nerfing individual cards, but gently nudge the meta into a different direct. To come back to my previous example of artifacts. Instead of nerfing Scenarios, the devs could implement cheap artifact removal, instead. Now, I am not saying that this is a good idea, in this case, but it is something that should be considered. In the end, some cards do always need to be toned down, though, but as a last resort.

The problem with ever changing meta and a lack of "core" value, is that eventually many other cards become irrelevant and invaluable.

I disagree with other cards becoming irrelevant. Yes, sometimes they fall off because of the meta, but that doesn't mean they are weak. Of course, not all cards need to be competitive, to begin with, though.

Good cards in a good deck should be competitive.

And for the same reason, I disagree with the statement above. In theory, you are correct and maybe it even holds true for most cards. However, whether or not a card is good is also dictated by the meta and, by extension, how easily it can be countered.

----

To sum it up, there needs to be a balance, yes. The question is what does this "balance" actually mean. If you could perfectly balance the game around numbers, then the meta eventually becomes solved and it will stagnate. Ironically, in the opposite situation, the same thing happens (i.e. when there are OP decks).

To solve this, you actually need to build in some imperfections, or OP cards/combos if you must call it that. What's important here is that there always needs to be a counter play available. As long as this is the case, the meta will remain in flux. What it comes down to is preventing the meta from becoming solved. In reality, this isn't possible. But it can be remedied by minor balance patches every season.

[...] about a year ago I had the impression the number 5 was relevant for Gwent [...]. In my impression that has changed to 6 and is slowly changing towards 7 (maybe). All cards that still operate at "5" is slowly becoming irrelevant.

That's more due to powercreep.

----

On a related note, I have never seen the meta change so fast as in Legends of Runeterra. While every meta cycle has oppressive decks, they never reign for long, thanks to the shifting meta and minor balance patches. Interestingly enough, cards that rarely seen play at the start of open beta, quickly became more popular, without those cards actually being buffed. Players find new ways to optimize decks and tweak those decks to better stand against the meta.

----

On a closing note, Gwent is inherently flawed because the game's concept wasn't build to be a competitive CCG. The game started out has a mini-game in the Witcher, after all, and that worked fine, as a simple mini-game. The devs did their best to mold the game into a better competitive CCG, but it cannot work in its current inception.

In beta, Gwent had its unique identity. The problem was that it limited the design space, making it difficult to release new expansions. Homecoming opened up this design space, by sacrificing some of its unique features. This should have brought a greater potential to the game. And while that potential is (still) there, it remains largely untapped.
 
Instead of nerfing Scenarios, the devs could implement cheap artifact removal, instead. Now, I am not saying that this is a good idea, in this case, but it is something that should be considered. In the end, some cards do always need to be toned down, though, but as a last resort.

Well, in my experience, scenario and defender further narrows down the balance and deck building options and are oppressive concepts. What does it even matter if you have artifact removal when I can play the whole Skellige scenario in one turn?

Scenario and artifact removal is also very binary. Same with defender and some decks. "Did you have purify at hand when the defender was played?" If yes, you win, if no, you lost. Then you have the fact that Nilfgaard can and WILL play scenario twice in every match when they run it (I do it too).

I think we agree that the main thing in balance is to tone down "meta decks" and bring them more in line with the rest of the game. But then again, you do have individual cards as well like Etriel and Muirlega vs Unicorn and Chironex. It's clear the balance between such cards is not good. Then there are comboes and things that never entered the mind of the developers and that are just broken meta. I guess it's a combination of balancing all that. Ofcourse, I agree the meta should change, I don't mean to say that it should always be as still as possible.
 
What does it even matter if you have artifact removal when I can play the whole Skellige scenario in one turn?

Dual action turns makes it far more difficult to balance every interaction. This is one of the flaws of the current implementation of Gwent and it's not easy to fix without overhauling major parts of the game.

Scenario and artifact removal is also very binary.

Because the implementation in Gwent has made them binary. Not all counters need to be [binary]. As such, Gwent needs more work than just balancing the game. Not to mention, those cards that are frustrating to place against while not necessarily even being strong.

But then again, you do have individual cards as well like Etriel and Muirlega vs Unicorn and Chironex. It's clear the balance between such cards is not good.

Compared in a vacuum? yes. Otherwise? No. First of all, the Unicorns are neutral cards, which tend to be a bit weaker. And, secondly, Etriel & Co are from a newer expansion, which usually has a bit of a power creep. Thus, this particular example is a bad one. Ironically, the first inception of the Unicorns was so strong, everyone and their goldfish was running those cards. Balance is overrated, no? :giveup:
 
Compared in a vacuum?

Well, if you fail to see those cards as wrongly tuned, especially in light of comparing them to similar cards, then I don't know how to convince you.

On their own they do 7 for 8 provisions, including 3 damage, which is not bad if you need damage. That's worst case scenario, and better than alot of gold cards worst case scenario. Worse case for unicorn cards is 7 for 9 including 3 damage.

In my book ST is one of the least fine tuned factions, to put it mildly.
 
Well, if you fail to see those cards as wrongly tuned, especially in light of comparing them to similar cards, then I don't know how to convince you.

Technically, I didn't say that. I just said that the comparison was flawed. The Unicorns were over-nerfed. As for Etriel & Co, points per provision isn't spectacular, but removal is a premium. In other words, Unicorns are too weak and Etriel's posse might be too strong, creating an even greater gap between the two. About the current meta, I cannot comment because I am no longer in the loop.
 
Balancing a CCG / TCG with continuous expansions is complicated. Also it heavily depends on what does balance means. For example, currently all faction have more than 1 deck being competitive. This is a kind of balance, and if this continues with changes/new expansions then I think we are in a good game position ... however more could be done.

For example, given the current state of the game winning condition, having more points than the opponent, the game naturally circles around reducing the points of the opponent (by damage, removing from board, seizing units or denying boosts) while increasing yours (increasing units, seizing units, boosting units). If there would be more winning conditions then there could be more variety, something I think may be confused with actual balance.

Something the current meta is lacking is the access to combo decks, and how the developers tend to dissemble them if they dominate. The case in point is the recent nerf to some cards of the Harmony deck:
+ Etriel / Muirlega: Contrary to the popular opinion, the cards were not OP at 7 provision each in the current meta because due to the access of plenty removal given their 4-point body, and also because they are a combo (two-card combo, but combo nonetheless).
+ The Great Oak: Similarly its 1-point body reduction was not justified. At 8 points it needed 5 cards on the row for a break even, now it needs 6 cards for that. The reasoning is the same as above: plenty of removal, and it is combo that takes at least 3-4 turns to set it up given the 6 cards currently required for a break even.

In fact thinking about it, NR is currently the only faction with several combo decks, although only the one with Draug is top tier. The other ones, charges or mages, are just glass cannons in terms of the card draw and lack of removal from the opponent.

On a side note, regarding scenarios. I personally like the approach the developers have taken with it: triple scenarios are gone (removing a good deal of frustration), thus leaving faction asymmetric interactions: NG can play double scenario, SK can play single-turn scenario (requiring a three-card specific combo), NR exerts psychological pressure, etc.

Just my figurative two cents.
 
Balancing a CCG / TCG with continuous expansions is complicated. Also it heavily depends on what does balance means. For example, currently all faction have more than 1 deck being competitive. This is a kind of balance, and if this continues with changes/new expansions then I think we are in a good game position ... however more could be done.

I think my point is that the game is badly balanced if only a few decks are competitive and viable, and that a truly balanced game has alot of competitive and viable decks.

I think, the greater the variety of decks, the better the balance is...
 
I think my point is that the game is badly balanced if only a few decks are competitive and viable, and that a truly balanced game has alot of competitive and viable decks.

I think, the greater the variety of decks, the better the balance is...

I agree with the concept, having more variety in terms of unique decks will be healthy for the game. The closest to this will be apparently a comeback for dwarf decks, and the hint of a (finally) wild hunt deck.
 
Top Bottom