1990BW;n10726271 said:
Taunting is childish but not giving someone a good game because you didn't like their deck isn't?
1990BW;n10726371 said:Like I said it also depends what I'm playing
Some decks which I think are broken are not fun to play against.
It's interesting to me that a lot of people in this thread give gg's depending on how much fun they had in the game.
partci;n10726451 said:
I had already seen your post and yeah I was referring to that mentality. The idea of GG is definitely not that you only tell someone "good game" if you enjoyed the game. That's like the direct opposite of sportsmanship.
1990BW;n10726471 said:
The person you are playing has nothing to do with the balance of the game.
lol. The majority of people in this thread are ostensibly saying "If you play Gwent I won't GG you."
Ya, same. The sportsmanlike handshake has become a like button.StrykerxS77x;n10726431 said:
Well, I've learned at least one thing here: the presence or lack of a GG doesn't communicate what anyone means it to communicate.
I will GG in any genuinely good game, win or lose. Good, unexpected plays, clever baiting, or a brainless screw up on my part, I'll gg, provided the opponent doesn't act like an ass afterwards.
Gwent's become a very binary point-slammy game where most losses are frustrating more than anything, where nothing you could possibly have done would have turned the game in your favour. It's increasingly hard to pat someone on the back for winning a game they couldn't have lost without being brain dead. It also doesn't help in this precise meta that some of the top decks are rock/paper/scissors in that they literally can't beat x deck and can't lose to y deck save under very specific circumstances/draws/coin luck.
I've actually been GGing a lot more lately, though, as my moonlight deck tends to lead to a lot of good games. I even gged an Imlerith gimmick player after managing to legitimately beat a boosted Immy through damage and a werewolf he couldn't do anything about. That was surprisingly good fun, figuring out how to work around the boosts I knew he had in hand and timing out my plays accordingly. Nullifying parasite with Mardroeme felt sooooo good.
Gwent's become a very binary point-slammy game where most losses are frustrating more than anything, where nothing you could possibly have done would have turned the game in your favour. It's increasingly hard to pat someone on the back for winning a game they couldn't have lost without being brain dead. It also doesn't help in this precise meta that some of the top decks are rock/paper/scissors in that they literally can't beat x deck and can't lose to y deck save under very specific circumstances/draws/coin luck.
I've actually been GGing a lot more lately, though, as my moonlight deck tends to lead to a lot of good games. I even gged an Imlerith gimmick player after managing to legitimately beat a boosted Immy through damage and a werewolf he couldn't do anything about. That was surprisingly good fun, figuring out how to work around the boosts I knew he had in hand and timing out my plays accordingly. Nullifying parasite with Mardroeme felt sooooo good.
Last edited:
StrykerxS77x;n10726541 said:
You and I actually do have influence on that when you look at the bigger picture.
It's not a coincidence to face the same decks most of the time after reaching a certain rank.
The community shapes the overall game balance and experience.
Gwent is about winning and progressing on the ladder so most of the (competitive) players right now pick a deck from the web with the best record, whether they like them or not.
There are also players who stay true to a deck they really like but isn't top tier.
You won't earn respect from these players when they face a lot of top tier netdecks.
So in that regard a GG also has something to do with respect.
The way people play in the higher ranked games is the way how Gwent should be.
Being depended of the cards you draw, deck synergy, strategy and the interaction between both players.
Every deck should be able to work like that but in the current meta it doesn't.
The game is still in BETA so it's not a a big deal right now BUT balance updates will determine the direction of the game so they shouldn't be taken lightly.
Top tier netdecking isn't good for the game the cards in general should have multiple 'synergy trees' to choose from.
There also should be tool to explore this, especially for new players.
I kinda find it amusing that so many seem to NOT be having fun... I mean if I only had fun if I won or w/e it'd feel too much like work to me.StrykerxS77x;n10726431 said:
now me, I was laughing for a good 5mins the day I got stomped flat by CA/Kambi/Shupe deck... Mashed GG and immediately friended the guy just to tell him how awesome that was
Exactly. The way this works out for me is that I respect every player's choice to play whatever they feel like.1990BW;n10727191 said:
I can sympathize with the general desire, but top tier (and low tier) netdecking in only a slightly wider sense has been present in every comparable game since before the net. Not sure how one would go about mitigating its effects.
What do you mean by "synergy trees"?
NomanPeopled;n10727621 said:
A deckbuilder tool (would be a better definition) that shows synergy with/between bronze, silver and gold cards.
Perhaps it's a bit too early to implement because the game is still in beta and there isn't enough variety.
But it will help (new) players to build a deck that does make sense.
When I look back to my early deck build attempts this would've been helpful I think.
Perhaps this will encourage players more to build a deck by themselves instead of netdecking.
1990BW;n10727191 said:
The developers shape the game balance and experience. The players are not responsible for that. Sportsmanship is about being gracious whether winning or losing. Not giving a gg because you don't like the other peson's deck is not a sign of good sportsmanship. Now if the other person was cheating somehow that might be a bit different.
Hmm. Perhaps something like "this effect kills your own unit, so here's a bunch of units that do stuff when killed" or "here's a spy card so here's a bunch of cards that mentions pies", that sort of thing?1990BW;n10728231 said:
It would need to remain pretty basic imo, both because in the end the players will find more and better synergies than the developers (perhaps not so much now, but certainly as the card pool increases), and second because they'd have to avoid the issue of encouraging certain decks themselves.
Ultimately though I don't think making building decks easier for beginners is going to dissuade competitive netdeckers. They're going to go for one of the most succesful decks regardless.
I'm not surprise people aren't give GG anymore. The game is not good anymore, so isn't pretty natural? All we have is cracked and not cracked decks now, it's not a matter of the best player anymore, but the best deck. Besides, the game is no more friendly, it's a carnage surrounded by opportunistic vultures like all other full competitive games (gwent wasn't supposed to be only about that). And this close all the doors for new players. I can't convice my friends to start to play because I know newcomers don't have chance to have fun anymore (so why they would play?) and my other (few) friends who play, don't play anymore and sincerally, I don't know why I should still play. And the worst is that I doubt that this will ever change because I can't see how this scenario can be altered at this point. So now, all I do is (still) patiently wait for Throne Breaker to have some real fun and try luck sometimes.
Ps.: don't give GG to Ciri Nova users is a matter of honor to me. And don't play with Eredin too.
Ps.: don't give GG to Ciri Nova users is a matter of honor to me. And don't play with Eredin too.
StrykerxS77x;n10728441 said:
I think you don't fully understand what I try to say.
A part of that when we speak about sportmanship everybody should have a even chance to win the game with every deck (with the best cards/synergy possible).
Thats not the case right now and hopefully my opinion will change in the future.
I'll stop defending my opinion now because this topic is about sharing why you don't give GG.
NomanPeopled;n10728471 said:
Well the way I see it is that every deck has 2 or 3 bronzes where you build a deck around.
For instance spies: impera brigade and enforcers.
It would be nice to have some kind of graphical interface which places these cards in the middle and creates a pool of cards around them that suit them.
Both owned and unowned cards so the user can create and save a craftlist.
Of course you're still totally free to create your own deck but I think this will be very helpfull in the beginning.
Last edited: