Would it be too much to ask to... [lose mosaic tile after losing two games]

[BartonFink]

Would it be too much to ask to...

...lose a tile in a mosaic only after losing two consecutive games? It's a tough ask to win six straight games, if you're starting from having zero tiles in a mosaic. The current situation is that the game rewards you, up to a certain rank, for winning consecutive games. I've hit a wall at rank 2, with an endless supply of bs Nil decks every time I play someone.

 

[NotGaunterODimm]

?????

 

[DRK3]

You can't go down in rank, no matter how many times you lose (of course there's the season transition de-ranking that affects everyone but the top of pro rank). That is already a huge safety net.

Back in the day, before there were mosaics+tiles, and rank was simply done in points, not only could you go down in ranked, at high levels, even before pro rank, you would lose more points on a loss than win with a victory, now that was some hardcore sh*t, now Gwent is way more casual.

 

[Crasto]

Yeah, it really feels harder to rank up when you're using any kind of deck that is not between the most dominant ones. Chances are you will periodically end up against something that overcentralizes the game (Viy, Lippy, Gezras) and if that happens twice in a row, which is absolutely more than likely, you're done.
I feel this is especially true in the mid-high tiers where there is nearly zero space for any kind of deck that is just a bit different from the dominant archetypes.
So yes, maybe having you lose a tile after two defeats in a row could be a nice idea, especially to reward players that prefer creative builds instead of the most obvious ones. It could be easily balanced by making you get a tile by winning two matches in a row after a defeat, and then keep with the normal progression.

 

[Guest 4375874]

I feel like that's just a symptom of the bigger issue which is balancing. As someone already mentioned the core issue is if you aren't running a net deck then it's almost always an auto loss. That's what needs to be addressed. I main MO but I hate Viy, has no interaction with the opponent and frankly isn't all that good judging by the recent stats. It's however the only consistent MO strategy in contrast to others. I like to play matches strategy against opponent strategy. VIY is by no means the only issue but if I don't use Viy it's almost impossible to rank up after a certain point, so I will either have to sacrifice having fun for rank.

 

[Messyr]

So yes, maybe having you lose a tile after two defeats in a row could be a nice idea, especially to reward players that prefer creative builds instead of the most obvious ones.

Above a certain rank (like 30-14), maybe.
Anything below, just no. Ranked is ranked, a competitive environment. As other already pointed out, not being able to lose a rank is already a huge safety net. I believe getting to Pro rank is already as easy as it gets, the game provides significant support to reach it - handholding everyone to get there is not something I'd like to see honestly.

As for the classic discussion of meta decks vs "creative" decks - my opinion is more or less the same. You cannot stop players steering towards what yields them the most benefit with the least amount of effort/stress involved. A certain concentration of the most effective decks will always be the case on the most competitve parts of the game (these are typically the last 3 ranks below Pro in my experience, that is where people tryhard the most). The situation is already better at Pro rank, up to a certain level (2500 overall+).

 

[BartonFink]

So yes, maybe having you lose a tile after two defeats in a row could be a nice idea, especially to reward players that prefer creative builds instead of the most obvious ones. It could be easily balanced by making you get a tile by winning two matches in a row after a defeat, and then keep with the normal progression

Someone in this thread has already said that the the last few ranks before Pro are the hardest. If that's the case, then I think that you really need some sort equaliser in that case but I would agree with the view that once you reach Pro rank you really shouldn't have any assists.

As I said, the assist that GWENT provides now for those below Pro rank doesn't seem fair as it advantages those with already strong decks. You mentioned having my suggestion implemented but coupling that with having the player gain a tile by winning two matches in a row. If you only gain a tile by winning two games in a row, it seems to me that you would be treading water if you win/lose/win/lose a lot.

Maybe my suggestion isn't the most idea one but I think that the current setup isn't fair either. Since we're not talking about Pro rank, I think that extra help is warranted. Once you're in Pro rank though, expect no assistance.

As it stands, GWENT is rewarding players who don't need the help. I.e. If you consistently win consecutive games, what's the point of assisting you?

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2021

I feel like that's just a symptom of the bigger issue which is balancing. As someone already mentioned the core issue is if you aren't running a net deck then it's almost always an auto loss.

I did think of going back to an earlier post of mine where I complain about the matchmaking system and saying that maybe the core issue issue is instead the balance of cards/factions, which is what you're saying about the ranking system.

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2021

Back in the day, before there were mosaics+tiles, and rank was simply done in points, not only could you go down in ranked, at high levels, even before pro rank, you would lose more points on a loss than win with a victory, now that was some hardcore sh*t, now Gwent is way more casual.

That sounds like a choice between arsenic and strychnine! Which would you prefer in your coffee?

 

[Messyr]

As it stands, GWENT is rewarding players who don't need the help. I.e. If you consistently win consecutive games, what's the point of assisting you?

Why do you believe players who are less successful on the ladder need support?
And to provide a bit more context, I'm talking about the part where the competition gets real, that is, below Rank 7.
It is a most awkward concept for me that the weaker I play, less optimized deck I bring etc. the more support I get from the game. If we are looking at real life examples, I don't see much handholding in the Olympics either for those who achieve weaker scores - especially not at serious competitions.

 

[Crasto]

You mentioned having my suggestion implemented but coupling that with having the player gain a tile by winning two matches in a row. If you only gain a tile by winning two games in a row, it seems to me that you would be treading water if you win/lose/win/lose a lot.

I proposed having a player gain a tile after winning two games in a row after a defeat. Then the progression would be normal again, with a tile won after each win. So, if you would lose a match, you would not lose a tile, but to get back to gaining tiles you would need to win twice after a defeat.

Above a certain rank (like 30-14), maybe.
Anything below, just no. Ranked is ranked, a competitive environment. As other already pointed out, not being able to lose a rank is already a huge safety net. I believe getting to Pro rank is already as easy as it gets, the game provides significant support to reach it - handholding everyone to get there is not something I'd like to see honestly.

I'm talking from my experience in ranks 5-7, which I was never able to get past to because every 3-4 matches I periodically end up against something that is either Viy or Lippy, that is, decks which are inherently stronger than the majority of every other deck around. Either you build your deck specifically to counter them, or you lose. And even if you tech against them then chances are you're likely to lose any other match against other decks.
The real issue here lies in the fact that some builds are just so much more competitive, and an average player with such a deck can easily beat a crazy good player with any other deck. In the end it all comes down to the matchup and not to the skills of the player because said decks are just so overtuned.

Why do you believe players who are less successful on the ladder need support?
And to provide a bit more context, I'm talking about the part where the competition gets real, that is, below Rank 7.
It is a most awkward concept for me that the weaker I play, less optimized deck I bring etc. the more support I get from the game. If we are looking at real life examples, I don't see much handholding in the Olympics either for those who achieve weaker scores - especially not at serious competitions.

Again from my experience, I have been able to get to ranks 5-7 using a NR Devotion Shieldwall deck and a NG Devotion Spies. They are nice decks in my opinion, fun to use, and they require a bit of strategic thinking to get value out of the cards. Problem is, overcentralizing decks beat strategy and skill all the times. It's not a matter of holding players hands, it's a matter of encouraging different playstyles, instead of relying on the just a handful of overcentralized builds that are just identical to each other, each time you play against them.

 

[Messyr]

I have been able to get to ranks 5-7 using a NR Devotion Shieldwall

I hope you know that just a few months ago, that specific devotion Shield Wall deck was the "ONE DECK" that destroys the meta? It was all the same as with Viy and Lippy right now, just instead you had NR SW and SK Warriors. People on this forum were running a separate thread to wait for NR SW "hotfix" as they put it (which fortunately never arrived).
With this I mean, power level can be relative and subject to the generic trend - NR SW (Devotion version) is an absolutely solid and Pro Rank capable deck, just as it was a few months back. Sure, you need to tech in a few things like Baron and at least 2 Boiling Oils for instant 5dmg removals, but it has all the tools to shut down / destroy both of the current offenders.

As a personal reference, I die in boredom playing the current NR Witcher solitaire deck, so I went back to SW Devotion and Revenant control for NR - both doing absolutely fine in and before Pro.

 

[DRK3]

The truth is most top tier decks, which players request to be nerfed, end up never being nerfed and the devs just move on to the next expansion which brings new cards to replace them...

... HOWEVER, that doesnt mean they stopped being great. The popular meta reports stop putting them on their tier lists, just because they need fresh stuff, even [insert slurry of pejoratives] netdeckers like to change once in a while.
Shieldwall is definitely more than viable (maybe a bit bad vs Lippy that goes very wide and pratically doesnt have any big targets).
Another one that is almost never seen now is "old school" OHunger, that had insane playrates during the summer - faced it recently and actually had more trouble than vs Viy and lost, it stopped being popular but never stopped being great.

 

[Guest 4375874]

Someone in this thread has already said that the the last few ranks before Pro are the hardest. If that's the case, then I think that you really need some sort equaliser in that case but I would agree with the view that once you reach Pro rank you really shouldn't have any assists.

As I said, the assist that GWENT provides now for those below Pro rank doesn't seem fair as it advantages those with already strong decks. You mentioned having my suggestion implemented but coupling that with having the player gain a tile by winning two matches in a row. If you only gain a tile by winning two games in a row, it seems to me that you would be treading water if you win/lose/win/lose a lot.

Maybe my suggestion isn't the most idea one but I think that the current setup isn't fair either. Since we're not talking about Pro rank, I think that extra help is warranted. Once you're in Pro rank though, expect no assistance.

As it stands, GWENT is rewarding players who don't need the help. I.e. If you consistently win consecutive games, what's the point of assisting you?

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2021

I did think of going back to an earlier post of mine where I complain about the matchmaking system and saying that maybe the core issue issue is instead the balance of cards/factions, which is what you're saying about the ranking system.

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2021

That sounds like a choice between arsenic and strychnine! Which would you prefer in your coffee?

the match making is definitely a culprit in addition to balancing. Many ppl here think match making is fine but it's clearly not. That said, regardless of who you are matched with it shouldn't be an automatic lose against any deck so that comes back to balancing. Match making is an issue for sure though.

 

[Crasto]

I hope you know that just a few months ago, that specific devotion Shield Wall deck was the "ONE DECK" that destroys the meta? It was all the same as with Viy and Lippy right now, just instead you had NR SW and SK Warriors. People on this forum were running a separate thread to wait for NR SW "hotfix" as they put it (which fortunately never arrived).
With this I mean, power level can be relative and subject to the generic trend - NR SW (Devotion version) is an absolutely solid and Pro Rank capable deck, just as it was a few months back. Sure, you need to tech in a few things like Baron and at least 2 Boiling Oils for instant 5dmg removals, but it has all the tools to shut down / destroy both of the current offenders.

As a personal reference, I die in boredom playing the current NR Witcher solitaire deck, so I went back to SW Devotion and Revenant control for NR - both doing absolutely fine in and before Pro.

I started playing in June 2020 and honestly I don't remember NR Devotion Shieldwall ever being a huge deal, but maybe that's just my memory. Don't get me wrong, it was and is good, but not nearly as good as the current dominating decks are, which are just superior in terms of design and point gain. When you are facing said decks, the outcome of the match is 90% defined at the start of the match, unless they get absolutely horrible draws while you get the best possible ones. But still, it's not a matter of strategy or skill.
However, as much as the debate is interesting, I've got the feeling we're drifting off topic.

 

[Messyr]

I started playing in June 2020 and honestly I don't remember NR Devotion Shieldwall ever being a huge deal, but maybe that's just my memory. Don't get me wrong, it was and is good, but not nearly as good as the current dominating decks are, which are just superior in terms of design and point gain. When you are facing said decks, the outcome of the match is 90% defined at the start of the match, unless they get absolutely horrible draws while you get the best possible ones. But still, it's not a matter of strategy or skill.
However, as much as the debate is interesting, I've got the feeling we're drifting off topic.

It was exactly as good and dreaded, trust me
Again, there were dedicated standalone thrads over these forums and reddit all over the place crying for NR SW nerfs. Literally all the same as what we have today with Lippy (and to some extent, Viy).

I do admit however, I never really understood the panic about SW - if we really have to name an overwhelming deck, that would be the SK Warriors from that era and Lippy/Cerys from the current (though still at least one league below SK Warriors - that sh$t was rough). NR SW was powerful, but fine and absolutely beatable.

 

[BartonFink]

Why do you believe players who are less successful on the ladder need support?
And to provide a bit more context, I'm talking about the part where the competition gets real, that is, below Rank 7.
It is a most awkward concept for me that the weaker I play, less optimized deck I bring etc. the more support I get from the game. If we are looking at real life examples, I don't see much handholding in the Olympics either for those who achieve weaker scores - especially not at serious competitions.

Flip that. Why do you think that players with decks good enough to win consecutive matches should get all the help in increasing their rank? Isn't that like giving Serena Williams or Novak Djokovic 2nd chances in a grand slam because they are the better players?

Someone's already mentioned that pro rank is easier than ranks 1 to 7 or whatever it was. If that's the case, why make the tougher ranks 1 to 7 even tougher for ordinary players?

Players are already being advantaged by the system for ranks 1 to 7. How is that fair? I'm just saying that the system should be fairer.

Post automatically merged: Feb 8, 2021

I proposed having a player gain a tile after winning two games in a row after a defeat. Then the progression would be normal again, with a tile won after each win. So, if you would lose a match, you would not lose a tile, but to get back to gaining tiles you would need to win twice after a defeat.

Since it's generally agreed that the rankings are meaningless for non-pro rank matches, I don't see why the system has to change once your make rank 7. Maybe just keep the system consistent until you reach pro rank?

I don't remember what the training wheels are for the lowest ranks but if there's too much help to start with, maybe just remove some of the training wheels you get at the start but not the training wheels that you lose once you hit rank 7 or whatever it is.

I'm still pissed that I made pro rank but because of the stupid way that CDPR handles this, I didn't get the contract for it. It just sucks. I'll post a suggestion thread on this soon.

Post automatically merged: Feb 8, 2021

The truth is most top tier decks, which players request to be nerfed, end up never being nerfed and the devs just move on to the next expansion which brings new cards to replace them...

I've found that the devs seem to have only two gears with new cards or changing old ones: they make OP new cards then they nerf them.

I've suggested before that they use AI to road-test new decks/cards. I'm guessing that if they did that, they wouldn't have good reason to nerf their new creations, as game would be better balanced.

Post automatically merged: Feb 8, 2021

I started playing in June 2020 and honestly I don't remember NR Devotion Shieldwall ever being a huge deal, but maybe that's just my memory. Don't get me wrong, it was and is good, but not nearly as good as the current dominating decks are, which are just superior in terms of design and point gain.

Personally I think that the game should be a broad church as far as competitive decks go. If you're constantly having runs where one faction is dominant or, worse, one particular build of one particular faction is dominant, as game devs, you are doing it wrong.