Why blame the players?

[DRK3]

In my opinion, there are two sides here - the gwent dev team, and the playerbase.

If the dev team did a proper job at balancing the gameplay and the cardpool, the problem would be fixed at the root, and no matter what the players did, Gwent would be in a good state...

But that is not exactly the case, and so we get to the players. They have the option to be creative, find the factions and strategies that they personally like, this would increase variety and hopefully the feeling that the game is stale and you face the exact same decks for week, maybe months in a row would be gone...

That also does not happen. So i blame both sides, honestly.

 

[garashta]

I agree with the OP.
The players should never be blamed. They only employ the rules of the games in what they deem the most efficient way possible in order to win, which is the whole point of the game.

 

[Iuliandrei]

I agree with the OP.
The players should never be blamed. They only employ the rules of the games in what they deem the most efficient way possible in order to win, which is the whole point of the game.

Seriously, after all this time you people still employ this pathetic "well it's technically not against the rules" argument?

 

[BigBullyMike]

I really enjoy these kinds of threads! So interesting to see peoples opinions on things! IMO I couldn't care less who plays what, I don't care if they make their own decks or net deck, I don't care if they taunt every 2 seconds or not at all, I don't care if they rope every single turn or if they a usain bolt quick playing! I love this game I love making decks and trying out new things and seeing how I do or mostly do not progress lol I play for fun so I have fun. Each to their own tho

 

[BabyLeshen]

Being Creative is not something you can force upon people.

Well, its totally up to people becoming a 'Circus horse' or 'Roach' in long run.

BUT, dev team need to listen more if they want more 'Roach' in playerbase.

It is a great idea, mate. I was suggesting a similar approach limiting the overusing of the same decks. Guess what? I was attacked for suggesting to limit people's freedom.

Lol, they must've misunderstood the concept. 'Deck Heat' concept might be annoying( can't play your champions whole day) but lesser evil than abusing meta deck or whatever.

Certain players will find alternate ways to face meta/annoying decks because they have own concept to play Gwent for each meta. Other players goes ranting because that's the truth, its annoying.

'Deck Heat' steps in control these abusive players rolling MB whole day and force them to use alternate deck or explore other factions. Why do roads have speed bumps? Slow it down.... Simple as that.

 

[Guest 4368268]

Good point. No one is forcing you to be annoyed. If you get annoyed, blame yourself for choosing to play a game that is annoying you. And if the devs choose to ignore or fail to address major concerns from players, they can blame themselves if Gwent is not as successful as they hoped it would be.

Some people get drawn in when the game is good/suited for them and invest a lot of money and time in it. Then if the game changes to something substantially different that annoys them it's not as easy to just call it quits cause you're more invested in it now.

 

[Charles5pencer]

So, why blame the players?

I blame players for their deck choice ... in casual.

Ranked is meant for "contest of muscles". Casual, in my opinion, has different purpose than coming to get free wins with copied metadeck. I wish, there would be some support from developers to make casual more casual. My long time idea (just one of many, it does not "solve" or "fix" casual, but it would imo help) is to let players enter casual only with 50% of less played leader abilities. That is ... I would be so cruel to ban 50% of all leader abilities from casual, but it would probably help with getting better casual experience. Do you remember how there was last year leader challenge with 3 least played leaders? This is similar idea. At least, it would prevent "4th most played leader" (I do not have any specific leader in mind, it is just *insert joke here* sentence) to be played there.

 

[Archan6el]

In my opinion, there are two sides here - the gwent dev team, and the playerbase.

If the dev team did a proper job at balancing the gameplay and the cardpool, the problem would be fixed at the root, and no matter what the players did, Gwent would be in a good state...

But that is not exactly the case, and so we get to the players. They have the option to be creative, find the factions and strategies that they personally like, this would increase variety and hopefully the feeling that the game is stale and you face the exact same decks for week, maybe months in a row would be gone...

That also does not happen. So i blame both sides, honestly.

A root cause solution is the only solution. If some people like playing toxic decks, constantly emoting during the game, doing other annoying stuff and copying (meta)decks, how can they be blamed? Blame them for their personality and liking different things than you? No. The game allows it. The devs are responsible as they alone set the rules for the game.

Some people get drawn in when the game is good/suited for them and invest a lot of money and time in it. Then if the game changes to something substantially different that annoys them it's not as easy to just call it quits cause you're more invested in it now.

That's true, the sunk cost dilemma. That can be tough. It's good to be aware of this when thinking about (not) quitting.

 

[LUE.nt]

Cause player actions, or their consequences, are giving developers many of the reasons to make modifications on the game.

I'm actually surprised at the many people not wanting to link an action to a consequence, even more in a online environment.

For example, this same post is a consequence of having read many posts about players doing X action. Ranting about netdeckers probably.

How is not then, a player action not having a consequence that is affecting others?

Saying that choices are valid just for the sake of equality or freedom is poor argumentation, and in my opinion, done for the sake of selfishness.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I have always made that same argument.

Post automatically merged: May 12, 2020

Cause player actions, or their consequences, are giving developers many of the reasons to make modifications on the game.

I'm actually surprised at the many people not wanting to link an action to a consequence, even more in a online environment.

For example, this same post is a consequence of having read many posts about players doing X action. Ranting about netdeckers probably.

How is not then, a player action not having a consequence that is affecting others?

Saying that choices are valid just for the sake of equality or freedom is poor argumentation, and in my opinion, done for the sake of selfishness.

Players are the same in all card games. How they use the tools given to them is a result of those tools. It's not the players fault how a card game is designed. There is zero reason to complain about what other players choose to do in a card game. They are there to have fun just like you.

 

[LUE.nt]

Players are the same in all card games. How they use the tools given to them is a result of those tools. It's not the players fault how a card game is designed. There is zero reason to complain about what other players choose to do in a card game. They are there to have fun just like you.

• Players are the same in all card games
• The tools allows them
• There is zero reason
• Players are trying to have fun just like others

A good example of the many points i wrote. Thanks.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

• Players are the same in all card games
• The tools allows them
• There is zero reason
• Players are trying to have fun just like others

A good example of the many points i wrote. Thanks.

So no response to those points then?

 

[LUE.nt]

You failed to read twice before answering...

Not only my initial answer, which is addressing all of the points you mentioned cause they are very similar to who created the post, but the many people answers in this post.

 

[Mikroval]

Agreed.

And for that reason, in my opinion the only one to blame when it comes to "this deck/faction is annoying/"OP"" is oneself. Not the other players, not the developers, not the game. No one's forcing you to dislike X, no one's forcing you to be annoyed by Y; it's all you.
It's a lot easier to blame someone/something else, though, that's only natural -- and so that's exactly what happens. (And before anyone asks, yes, I'm guilty of it as well.)

I don't see your point frankly. I get super frustrated by playing against NG, yes, and its all me, yes, but so what. If I dodge games I lose score, if I keep playing I hate my life, so the options are limited. Prolonged periods of frustration end up in people giving up on the game, or slowly playing it less and less. Who's at fault becomes irrelevant cause its the game to suffer in the long run. You are free to play whatever you want, be it op or not, just don't expect my gratitude for the miserable experience I had playing you.
If however you think I'm a masochist that wants nothing more then cue into time wasting, nerve consuming games all day, and do it with a smile on my face and without complaining, all for your enjoyment, you are wrong.
There are objectively mechanics that are unhealthy for the game overall. If you like them so be it, just don't expect the majority of others to be fine with it as well.

(I too play Second Wind Skellige, so everything I said is valid for me as well.)

 

[Draconifors]

I don't see your point frankly.

Yes, I can see that because you missed it. No need to quote me just to post a rant.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

You failed to read twice before answering...

Not only my initial answer, which is addressing all of the points you mentioned cause they are very similar to who created the post, but the many people answers in this post.

Didn't see any responses to anything I wrote in my response to your initial post.

Blaming the players for a games design is silly.

Post automatically merged: May 13, 2020

Saying that choices are valid just for the sake of equality or freedom is poor argumentation, and in my opinion, done for the sake of selfishness.

I'll respond specifically to this post. The choices in these games aren't valid because of freedom or equality. They are valid because it's how the game was designed to be played. It is on the developers if they don't like the net decking to change the rules or alleviate the issue by giving the players more options so they don't feel the need to play the same tier 1 meta decks. Same goes for decks that people find super frustrating to play against. It's not on the players to not use those decks. It is on the developers to change the deck if they don't want it in their game. It is nonsensical to blame players on following the games design just like in every other card game out there, some of which have much less problems with net decking. There is absolutely nothing selfish about someone playing within the rules of a video game and doing what they find fun in that game.

 

[Guest 4398794]

So, why blame the players?

Me personally don't blame the players.
I blame those who defend those stupid decks.
And here's the but: when you will play the same thing over and over and over again, you will start to blame players too for making the game boring and stale.

 

[kimalye]

In this patch i've played against nilfgaard poison deck in 12 of my 15 ranked games. This is happening just because devs killed all playable archetypes under the name of "BALANCING" and forced players to play that way. They have no idea how to balance their game. It is boring as hell to see your opponents play same deck in each game. As a player i am NOT guilty. Just because devs dont do their jobs well enough, i have to see same deck in each game.

Yeah I've seen poison NF decks 70% of my ranked games.

 

[Archan6el]

Yes, I can see that because you missed it. No need to quote me just to post a rant.

That's not a rant, but a valid response and explanation of how someone feels. If people don't like something, they will not play it, buy it or even accept it. It's up to the devs to create something that people like. Instead of seeming haughty about someone not getting "your point" and accusing people of ranting and twisting your words, why not clarify "your point"?

 

[LUE.nt]

Didn't see any responses to anything I wrote in my response to your initial post.

...

It is nonsensical to blame players on following the games design just like in every other card game out there, some of which have much less problems with net decking.

Everything is there, on my first answer. I will clarify one more time...

You unlink player actions to game design changes:

• A player overuses X card
• A player brings the timer of the turn as far as it can get
• A player doesn't want to pay for anything in the game

Now think about all those individual player actions but in a bigger scale.

How many of those have bringed or could bring changes to the game?

Hope is clearer now.