ZERO strategy - what is wrong with HC76

[killaszit]

lets do the math:
u have 25 card deck
u draw 10 at the begining
u draw 3+3 cards between rounds
u mulligan 2 cards

thats 18 cards which u r able to see during a game (and u dont have any kind of tutors like decree, witchers, roach etc)
thats 72% cards from deck
and u still says its impossible to build "consistent" deck which prevents from getting "brickhouse" at ur hand?

ya'll really need to focus on deckbuilding rather than complainig about HC all the time

 

[_Kili_]

lets do the math:
u have 25 card deck
u draw 10 at the begining
u draw 3+3 cards between rounds
u mulligan 2 cards

thats 18 cards which u r able to see during a game (and u dont have any kind of tutors like decree, witchers, roach etc)
thats 72% cards from deck
and u still says its impossible to build "consistent" deck which prevents from getting "brickhouse" at ur hand?

ya'll really need to focus on deckbuilding rather than complainig about HC all the time

[No, please.]

Let's just assume you draw a perfect starting hand, don't draw any horrible cards with the next 2 draws and then mulligan 2 cards. That means you have seen 16-18 of your 25 cards. Thats 62-72% of your deck. That is not what I would call consistent, come again when you're at 90% or better.

I'm assuming you only started playing after HC76? Or atleast you have not been playing for long/much?
I'm sorry, you just sound like you don't have much of an idea how the game works...

 

[Que-Hegan]

[...]

The consistency of a deck does not mean number of card you can draw, or how many time you can mulligan, it's the ability to draw whatever card you want whenever you want, so that you can counter you opponent move at the right time.

 

[Esmer]

thats 18 cards which u r able to see during a game (and u dont have any kind of tutors like decree, witchers, roach etc)

You see, aside from the points people above made (seeing 72% of your deck), this is not how the game works. In Gwent it is very important to have some specific cards in your hand in round 1. Otherwise you just lose. Moreover, if the majority of your golds get into those 28% you never see, it's also a loss (unless your opponent is unlucky as well).

Back in the beta you had up to 3 bronzes, 3 mulligans and blacklisting, which allowed you to go through up to 19 cards of your deck before the 1st round (19 cards if for the situation when you are mulliganing 3 different bronzes you don't need while not picking more copies of the said bronzes). Essentially, 3 bronzes per deck + blacklisting allowed you to mulligan 3 cards at once, hence 10 + 3x3 = 19. Again, this is just before the 1st round.

So even without having tutors the draws were much more consistent in the beta.

Basically, a lack of this consistency (I need to have card X in R1) has led to what HC is: point spam/removal spam without caring about synergy. Don't get me wrong, the synergy cards are still here. But the lack of consistency makes it so it's more profitable to play cards with less synergy than hoping to draw the cards you absolutely need in R1.

A good example of this is new Skellige. You get Birna and Derran in R1: the game plays like the old Gwent, you don't - well, better luck next time.

 

[P3rsephone]

I have Last Wish in my deck and havent seen this card for the last 10 games.
This is just straight random bullshit.

Like some youtuber said... if your opponent plays a card and you cant react to it... you are fkd. Thats the new HC.
Like your Geralt:Yrden doesnt show up against bearmasters or buffing SC.
Or you dont draw your artifact smashers and opponent plays Sihil (just some examples).


And then there is the fact that some famous players left the building.
So GWENt morphed to something else.. dont no if its 76... but its only a tiny step away from it.

 

[nedders]

Its nothing hasn't been said before, but it's getting worse, not better. People have now discovered the zero-strategy massive Monster deck, and it's absolutely awful - I've no idea how an experience game studio like CDPR could let this slip through.

Basically, take your pick of massive cards. Golyat, Speartip, etc. Take your pick of four consume units. Get deal. Play big cards. Later on, play more big cards and play little cards that eat the big dead ones. End game with 50+ points on a board where the average card strength is 4.

Unless you've got a handful of Geralts and scorch. Geralt deck beats Monster deck. Trouble is, it's useless against 99% of other decks.

If they're not going to change the fundamentals of the gameplay and merge it back into what Gwent Beta was, they need to add something better at the front end. Blacklisting, more mulligans, broader hands or even go a step further and allow you to choose to play or not.

Imagine the scenario, you're trying out a new ST Movement, or NG Prison, whatever, in the current HC76 - you click Ranked Game and are presented with your potential challenger - oh, look, it's Woodland Moron. Do you accept the challenge? Er, nope, not interested in another bore-off vs massive monsters. Decline. If the kids out there are running these YouTube decks, they'd quickly run out of people to play and end up losing vs. AI, so would be forced to try something different. I think for the way the game is, this is a logical step. Don't just MAKE me play my Sihil deck against 10+ strength cards. Let me choose.

The whole point of this is to highlight that Massive Monsters is NOT STRATEGIC IN THE SLIGHTEST. There's no real thought goes into it.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Serious question to this thread, are we playing the same game? It sounds an awful lot like building a deck heavily reliant on draw RNG and complaining about.... draw RNG.

Here's a tip for HC. Pick a handful of round win cons and find two or three ways to make each of those cards achieve their intended value. Don't build a deck where you need A, B and C R1, D, E and F R2 or R3 and a ton of complicated card combos where you must draw the full combo to avoid bricks. You'll find consistency goes up if you do the former. You'll find the game play turns into a crapshoot if you do the latter. If you do the latter and end up with a crapshoot it's not a game problem. It's a player problem.

I know it's easy for the "HC is completely random, terrible, bad, etc.", crowd to come a running to trash HC in another thread meant to trash HC. I can't help but question whether these people are even playing the game.

Lastly, I'm confused about the lack of strategy or thought comments. Once again, are we playing the same game?

 

[Esmer]

Don't build a deck where you need A, B and C R1, D, E and F R2 or R3 and a ton of complicated card combos where you must draw the full combo to avoid bricks.

That is exactly why brain dead decks like big monsters are so powerful. Very few synergies, you win just by spamming big units on the board, and then eating big units. Is there a counter to these decks? Sure, Gigni, Geralt Yrden, Scorch. But you can't have many of those cards in your deck and you need to DRAW those to win, whereas woodland spirit always has some big creature to spam.

Anyway, I am glad you like the game. This means there's a chance CDPR will support Gwent for some more time instead of shutting it down. And consequentially there's a chance the game will turn into something better.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

That is exactly why brain dead decks like big monsters are so powerful. Very few synergies, you win just by spamming big units on the board, and then eating big units. Is there a counter to these decks? Sure, Gigni, Geralt Yrden, Scorch. But you can't have many of those cards in your deck and you need to DRAW those to win, whereas woodland spirit always has some big creature to spam.

1. Big units + Thrive.
2. Thrive with cards like Forktail.
3. Big units with GY consumes.
4. Immunity with Thrive.
5. Consume with cards like Werecat, Incantation, etc.
6. Big units + small, growing units.

There are 6 synergies big Woodlands has right there. #6 isn't necessarily a synergy but it makes for good deck building because it provides both big and low starting units. How does big Woodlands not rely upon synergy?

Big Woodlands may be powerful if it runs unopposed. If you do happen to draw a card like Yrden it's completely screwed. So yeah, it's rather straightforward to pilot. Yeah, it's a decent deck. It's also almost completely neutralized by certain tech cards.

The deck isn't necessarily anymore powerful compared to what it was before. It's been around a while. If anything it's slightly weaker due to the Forktail change. The main difference is many of the control oriented cards were over-nerfed due to a kneejerk reaction predicated on reddit and uninformed player QQ. Not that this is abnormal. This has been the typical card balance approach since CB. So yeah, now certain buff spam/pointspam decks are harder to deal with.

Anyway, I am glad you like the game. This means there's a chance CDPR will support Gwent for some more time instead of shutting it down. And consequentially there's a chance the game will turn into something better.

I like some aspects of the game. Others, not so much. For instance, as mentioned above the card balance people leave a lot to be desired. The mulligan system sucks. The provision system is quite clearly nothing more than a band-aid card balance tool. The deck building is an improvement, IMO. The visuals are an improvement, IMO. I'm not claiming to be right on any of these issues. It's just my opinion.

Despite the... shortcomings of our new and improved mulligan system, you can mitigate it's problems with proper deck building. As I said earlier if you're going to run heavily draw dependent concepts, and a ton of them, there is little reason to complain about experiencing heavily draw dependent game play. Pretending everyone you play against gets the perfect hand all the time and you manage to draw only bad cards is likewise ridiculous. Not saying you said either of these things. Just throwing it out there, as others have effectively said both of them.

 

[Esmer]

Despite the... shortcomings of our new and improved mulligan system, you can mitigate it's problems with proper deck building. As I said earlier if you're going to run heavily draw dependent concepts, and a ton of them, there is little reason to complain about experiencing heavily draw dependent game play.

That I agree with. But Gwent used to be all about synergies, and people generally hated straightforward point vomiting decks like veterans and dwarves. Even rather simple decks like NG soldiers and Foltest swarm had tons of sinergies.

Now almost every competitive deck is basically point spam or removal spam. Yes, there are some synergies in those decks (like thrive and bloodthirst), but it's just a small bonus when they work, they are generally "win more" mechanics.

Anyway, as I said before, the biggest problem is not even synergies, but not drawing your golds. They are even more powerful (compared to bronzes) than before, but it's much harder to get the cards you want. Basically, drawing each gold is like getting +1 CA (in terms of points).

 

[Que-Hegan]

All of this is, IMHO because of the lack of Tutor + less of copies > more draw depend, less thinning, more trash cards > more RNG.
Once upon a time, when there are a blacklist to mulligan, Spella'tael, with just 1 Elven Mercenary you can have 15 point + thin 5 cards in 1 move: Elven Mercenary > Reconnaissance > Elven Mercenary > Reconnaissance > Elven Mercenary > Mahakam ale.
Or
Royal Degree > Vesemir > mandrake onto a 10 point hand buffed Sabbath (buff by Aguara)
Feel-Good-Man

[...] they need to [... ] allow you to choose to play or not. [...]

This is actually good idea, then a Geralt deck can choose to ONLY beats Monster deck, more on that every meta deck will only face there perfect counter deck, then there will be no meta, then there will be no place for net deck, only homebrew deck with secret ingredient can survive, WOW that escalated quickly.

 

[Pruny]

Also pulling cards without deploy ability is braindead.
If i kill goliat i get regis but i cant use him

 

[Velvett]

(...)
Variety is not achieved by making the players having inconsistent hands, variety is having a lot of different decks which play against each other in various ways. Apparently, CDPR doesn't get that.

And that's exactly what i'm thinking about CDPR's decisions

 

[Que-Hegan]

The more cards that 1 tutor card can tutor, the more ways you can play your deck.

They tried to make [...] players having inconsistent hands [...]

Because some said consistency made every game play out the same and boring, and now when the tutor cards is gone so is the consistency, the game isn't everyday boring anymore, it's become ADVANCE BORING

 

[nedders]

Serious question to this thread, are we playing the same game? It sounds an awful lot like building a deck heavily reliant on draw RNG and complaining about.... draw RNG.

Here's a tip for HC. Pick a handful of round win cons and find two or three ways to make each of those cards achieve their intended value. Don't build a deck where you need A, B and C R1, D, E and F R2 or R3 and a ton of complicated card combos where you must draw the full combo to avoid bricks. You'll find consistency goes up if you do the former. You'll find the game play turns into a crapshoot if you do the latter. If you do the latter and end up with a crapshoot it's not a game problem. It's a player problem.

I know it's easy for the "HC is completely random, terrible, bad, etc.", crowd to come a running to trash HC in another thread meant to trash HC. I can't help but question whether these people are even playing the game.

Lastly, I'm confused about the lack of strategy or thought comments. Once again, are we playing the same game?

Serious question to this reply, are you even reading what people are writing?

Post automatically merged: Dec 8, 2018

Also pulling cards without deploy ability is braindead.
If i kill goliat i get regis but i cant use him

Any card should use their ability when pulled (Golyat, Tibor), it is utterly braindead that you can easily ruin your deck on one random pull. You should at least get the benefit of the units effect, and additionally it should be bronze only.

Jutta's also stupid - play it from the graveyard, doesn't damage itself. Wtf?

 

[StrykerxS77x]

The whole point of this is to highlight that Massive Monsters is NOT STRATEGIC IN THE SLIGHTEST. There's no real thought goes into it.

Were the uber artifact eithne scorch decks any better?

 

[_Kili_]

Were the uber artifact eithne scorch decks any better?

When did someone say it was?

 

[Gen_Liu]

So essentially, we're discussing the fact that draws can lose or win you games....
Is that not the case for any CCG ever (including old Gwent)...

 

[Pruny]

no gen-liu, its about consistency,sinergy and arhetypes, which HC destroyed

Variety is not achieved by making the players having inconsistent hands, variety is having a lot of different decks which play against each other in various ways. Apparently, CDPR doesn't get that.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

When did someone say it was?

It was a question to him because he was making a big deal about the monsters deck.