Here's what's weird about SK decks. I was doing reasonably ok with my own variation of a Svalblod deck, probably better win rate than any ST or MO deck I constructed. Bear in mind I built my Svalblod deck very soon after CC and well before it featured on Artuza's Snapshot #8, so it's probably not META, but it's good enough. As soon as I picked up a few wins, however, I started to face stuff I couldn't counter - namely NG Lock/Steal. A lot. Now I don't see Ardal on the Artuza META, so why would I face it so often with a deck that struggles against it?He's pretty good at high rank but I have more issues with Skellige decks.
Fran double RNR isn't that popular from what I can see so there is nothing strange about not running into it.Here's what's weird about SK decks. I was doing reasonably ok with my own variation of a Svalblod deck, probably better win rate than any ST or MO deck I constructed. Bear in mind I built my Svalblod deck very soon after CC and well before it featured on Artuza's Snapshot #8, so it's probably not META, but it's good enough. As soon as I picked up a few wins, however, I started to face stuff I couldn't counter - namely NG Lock/Steal. A lot. Now I don't see Ardal on the Artuza META, so why would I face it so often with a deck that struggles against it?
Strange, no? It's obvious why anyone faces SK decks a lot of the time, and MO for that matter, because netdecking is way out of control in this game. This loops me back around to the subject of Rag Nar Roog - SK Self Harm would absolutely crap on a RNR spell'a'tel deck, and in all my time using a Svalblod deck I have faced Francesca's double RNR precisely....zero times.
There is, as I've stated before. The devs need to heavily limit what cards people have access to. But of course, they won't.Fran double RNR isn't that popular from what I can see so there is nothing strange about not running into it.
Netdecking is "out of control" in all card games. Its part of the game and there is no changing that.
Basically making the game Pay To Win? I don't think so. CDPR wants every new player to get their collection ASAP, but for the vanity items, they want the players to invest more time or money. This is the right business model which encourages new players to try the game. If getting new cards or a decent collection is going to take huge time, people will simply quit the game or it will create a negative environment where people will complaint about Pay2Win model.There is, as I've stated before. The devs need to heavily limit what cards people have access to. But of course, they won't.
They need to work on the game first and stop messing about with new cards/mechanics. The game itself doesn't work well enough yet - it's the only game I've seen emerge from Beta and go into Beta....!!You can have the exact deck card by card, but there are lots of opportunities to misplay, and the 5 or 6 youtubers, don't necessarily have the decks 100% right all the time, you can add tech to your decks, according to the meta, or the weakest match ups.
As more and more cards are added, there will be more variety, and as more mechanics are introduced, more possibility for new decks, or win just by playing better... So, when people say, remove artifacts, or remove that, I think nothing should be removed, but more things should be added to counter things that are too powerful, that will make the game more interesting.
I think that's the way to go, not just putting a wall for new players, that goes against the best interest of the game.
Please bear in mind I'm not a card game player. My personal involvement in Gwent came from Witcher, not MTG. I didn't even know what MTG stood for a month ago. I see games as being things you can be good at and control most of the outcome. Gwent has a bad cointoss, a bad matchup system, bad mulligan without blacklisting and a heavy reliance on the quality of your RNG deal/card timings. But these are my opinions, not shared by all - someone who doesn't play sports games and plays poker, for example, might see it as having loads of control.The game has ways to give more control, tutors, thinning, etc, I think its one of the less random card games out there, way less than MTG at least, unless you want to play chess, there is no randomness there...
Think about it, 25 cards, you draw 16 with 6 to 7 mulligans, add thinning and one tutor... more than that and you would be guaranteed to have all the cards you want all the time... (you can play Bran and you will draw your entire deck if you don't like randomness).
Wow - that's one game I'll NEVER try!!! How does it have any popularity, even your little description makes it sound mind-bogglingly bad.Remember its a card game, by definition, there should be some randomness, I don't think there is another card game with less randomness than Gwent, obviously I don't know them all.
As I said, there are other games without randomness at all, but if you play card games, you cannot complain about randomness (coin toss mechanics is a totally different thing, and the matchup system, I highly doubt is rigged to benefit, who?)
Just giving you an example from MtG, your deck is 60 cards, you need mana and spells in a starting hand of 7 cards, if you have too few mana or too much, you probably are screwed, if you don't like your starting hand, you can mulligan it entirely (not partially), at the cost of one card... you would be driven insane in 5 mins playing that game, lol.
I don't see how thats any kind of solution. So new players get an even bigger disadvantage on top of being new? What does that solve?I wasn't thinking p2w. Something like, new players can't access certain cards until they reach a certain level, like any good RPG haha
There is no stopping the "tubers" now. I made a rather elaborate post explaining this on another topic. You only need 5/6 full-time Gwent players (about 0.5% of the player base) to affect the other 99.5% of other players decks. That seems very wrong to me.