To my knowledge we can't even see the level of opponents. How do you even know you're being matched against people of a similar level? especially since they're planning to scrap it for a new experience based system anyway.
secondly, higher level doesn't exclude someone from using a "bad" deck or being cheap.
secondly, higher level doesn't exclude someone from using a "bad" deck or being cheap.
Last edited:
Will never understand why people are so precious over GG, it's not like it effects you to give GG out.
Necro_Man_Ser;n7177670 said:
I actually have a problem with sore winners, if you check what I wrote above in more detail. Since I lost most matches I played, loses formed the bigger part of this statistic. After giving it a second thought, the only people that did send me a GG were those I fought initially, where I was seriously out decked. I guess it was their way of saying "shit happens."
I really don't see a connection regarding complexity with Scrolls. You do have to add up, but in scrolls calculating a winning solution could take 10 minutes easy, while here matches last for like 5 minutes. IMO this game is dwarfed by Scrolls in terms of complexity. No multiple rows (well, what we have here is rather simple in comparison,) no idols, simpler game mechanics, less cards, no resources and especially no multiple resources etc. IMO Scroll veterans should kick ass in Gwent.
Another big difference, after playing Scrolls for a few hours, you could afford yourself one or two card packs and even if after some time you didn't need most of those cards because they just kept piling up, it still felt rewarding. Plus you always had a chance of getting something really sweet. Not to mention Scrolls at its core wasn't a p2w game, one of the oft overlooked facts. It's only failure was that it, well, failed lol.
If some of these core mechanisms change dramatically, I'll try to revisit it at a later date. As is now, I simply don't feel like playing it any further.
Lytha;n7177760 said:
What happened the past weekend?
I did play Northern Kingdoms, but it's practically the stock deck, with a few additional cards tossed in. I got two Blue Stripes Scouts (had only one commando so I didn't use it) and a Trebuchet. I think I got a Pavetta in a keg and a Sile da Tansarville. Had a chance to get a Reinforcement card, but passed on it and that's pretty much it. Something like this. Basically opened three kegs total, two of which were gifts.
I tried playing Dun Banner Heavy Cavalry firstly, then Reinforced Siege Towers, saved Geralt for the second or third round. Then played some Redanian Knights and boosting them with potions and/or Blue Stripes scout and/or Kaedweni Siege Support. If I felt the opponent already used their removal, I'd go bonkers before duplicating one Knight with Foltest. For a nice added effect, with two Siege Towers, Promote would come in quite handy, especially with Foltest's bonus. Saved the Commander's Horn for tie breakers and hail marries. I also liked using Foltest on the field medic, that was a nice combo. Used prize winning cow just for kicks, people tend to waste their removal on it. Helped myself with the removal cards as I saw the need. Always (when possible) kept a Clear Skies on hand to fend off fog and frost, on the last round I'd just use it for summoning support.
I actually liked very much the two out of three mechanism, it provides some room for strategic maneuver.
All in all, I don't see anything annoying about this style of play, after playing only a few dozen matches I didn't feel like moving around. I guess people stick with those starting factions. Maybe a nice idea would be to implement a tutorial for each faction which would play out for people on a random basis.
(Last weekend was mostly a phase of "why did they post the patch notes but not the patch" + getting tired of the game.)mkey82;n7182470 said:
Northern, and something that goes into the direction of the old Clone + Promote "cheese"... yeah, I understand the GG problem.
If you check out the thread about the popularity of the factions ( http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...-faction-do-you-like-dislike-the-most-and-why ), Northern is somehow not very popular by the people who posted in that thread. I could imagine that my allergy is not so unique, and that some other people feel the same and may want to "punish those Foltests" a bit.
Meh. I've no idea how to help you remedy the GG issue.
Moderator's reminder: Let's try to keep this civil, and respectful, please. Thanks.
(On a personal note, most all of the rounds I play end in GG on both sides. I nearly always give the token, provided the player puts effort into the game, winning or losing. I only withhold GG in cases where players simply give up at once, or keep playing cards after they have easily defeated my hand. I consider both cases a bit unsporting.)
(On a personal note, most all of the rounds I play end in GG on both sides. I nearly always give the token, provided the player puts effort into the game, winning or losing. I only withhold GG in cases where players simply give up at once, or keep playing cards after they have easily defeated my hand. I consider both cases a bit unsporting.)
Last edited:
Why would a winner wait for GG? If you win it should be the winner who's auto-sending GG to the losing side. I think so...TH3WITCH3R;n7182150 said:Actually I think as most of the player saying they are waiting & if opp. gg them then only they are giving too but problem is I think both side players doing same thing "WAITING" so end result is no one getting gg
Some winners believe that the loser has to be the one who gets all the crap: unpleasant feeling of having lost + getting no reward and XP + being the one who risks even more unpleasant feelings for being the one who GGed but got none in return.HenryGrosmont;n7184330 said:
I find this attitude baffling. But apparently, they're convinced that they're in the right.