Yes, and it totally kills the meaning of the GG as "good game". Honestly, people who "always GG" remind me of ever smiling citizens in "We Happy Few" and creep me out. But doing so and citing one of the most (if not the most) toxic, obnoxious and hypocritical personas in Russian literature is a totally new level of scary.I'll always GG a game, regardless if I win or lose, regardless of how much I win by or on the receiving end of a brutal beat down by my opponent. I'm reminded of the following quote by Leo Tolstoy: "Nothing can make our life, or the lives of other people, more beautiful than perpetual kindness." It costs nothing but kindness and goodwill to GG a game.
There are very rare cases when I do not give GG.
And wish there was a slap button instead.
It is when player has obviously won and dragging time on purpose, needlessly playing off ALL their master-a55 moves I care not about.
I haven't played Heartstone in ages, so things might have changed, but here is my experience:Especially concerning the power level. In Gwent, results are almost pre-determined by the type of cards you hold (the more legendaries you have the better, and more guarantee you'll win the game ).
Yes, RNG can be bad in excess, but in moderate amounts, it also gives someone a chance to turn things around.
In Gwent, if you suspect a round is lost, you can pass and hope to mulligan into something useful.
The issue you are describing has more to do with game progression, than with game design. On this topic there is a discussion going on the thread "Starter Decks and (unbalanced) Matchmaking".I am new to Gwent, but if I am losing almost every game because I don't have the most powerful cards (no matter how good my strategy is and I am trying to collect more powerful cards), then that's a major flaw in game design.
I'd add Simlas to your list. And Oneiro (when used to draw THE CARD - the only working one in the deck).Well, no GG for:
4. Meditating mages.