ZERO strategy - what is wrong with HC76

[Derfes]

I've asked elsewhere - why, when I'm only level 12-14, am I constantly playing people who are error-free? I make mistakes often, they contribute to losses sometimes. But I have played this afternoon a few times, when the US community is presumably offline, and I play against error-free perfect-deal decks time and time again.

First, it is not right to blame people just because they play better than you. For your mistakes the only one person to blame is you.
Second, level does not represents player's skill, it is just about time they have spent on this game. You can play for 70-100 hours and still be a complete noob, or you can reach the pro rank just in one week.
Third, there are not only an US community playing this game, but people all around the world. Me, personally, from Israel.

 

[Karolis.petrikas]

It's shit like this that just makes you want to get on a plane to Poland, go to CDPR's office, sneak in and remove all their tea bags so they don't get a cup of tea tomorrow morning.

Haha! and tie all the pair off shoes with double knots!

 

[EmilyWoW]

Haha...spend a whole day playing HC and deckbuilding. Seriously, I've never criticized HC before, I've even defended it at the beginning, but now it's finished, I quit this tedious, boring and pure luck based game.

I've played since the start of the beta, been at rank 20-21 almost each month of the beta, have 100.000+ scraps and stone, so I'm no beginner, so it's even more painful to leave a game in which I've invested so much time. However the truth is imho, that gwent isn't fun anymore.

Playing against the current top tier woodland ghouls with a meme deck with 3 phoenixes? Won because the poor guy was stuck with his ghouls and Ozzie in his hand and an empty graveyard.

Playing against a sage/spelltael with my prison niflgaard, which is basically the best match up I could dream about? Lost because none of my 7 card able to lock ever showed up during the whole 3 rounds.

Common' tell me it's not a luck based game. I have a load of stories like that.

95% of new homecoming were catastrophic:

-Provision. Before you used 25 useful cards, and you had to think of which you'll take out to add a new one. Now you choose your 10-15 useful cards and fill the deck with trash that you hope to never draw. Oh and I forgot the mandatory anti-artifact card, the mandatory lock card, and the mandatory guy that banish your opponent graveyard before the patch. But when they'll fix weather you'll have the mandatory anti-weather card to replace him. Fun deckbuilding.

-2 bronzes. Stupid design decision. As the global value of cards have been decreased they have valor only in combos with other cards. So let's force the player to have less doubles to reduce his chance to draw useful cards combinations. And less also ban all the tutors! Fun, fun, fun! Seriously why do you think that beastmaster SK is better then deathwish MO? Because the first one brainlessly discard all the cards browsing all his deck, while the second one needs to have a good proportion of deathwish/consume in his starting hand.

-Two styles of play. Either you play a control deck, trying to screw your opponent board, either you play a [nope] deck, trying to get you ideal combination of cards on board, totally ignoring your opponent. Both are luck based, the first is boring, the second is frustrating. The meta is far worse then during the NG alchemy/Sk greatswords period.

So I quit this. I won't uninstall the game right now, I'll give it a glimpse in a couple of month (if it's still exists), to see if it had been improved, what I really hope for.

 

[aldimon]

@Streletz

I don't know about you, but I build my decks in ways where I don't include filler trash that automatically costs me the game when I draw it. Maybe it's your deckbuilding?

 

[kAiSeR007]

Playing against a sage/spelltael with my prison niflgaard, which is basically the best match up I could dream about? Lost because none of my 7 card able to lock ever showed up during the whole 3 rounds.

So you had 7 locks, and I guess a few more bronzes and golds for dealing damage, reset, remove or seize units. Basically a hard control deck, which is very frustrating to play agaisnt, and you didn't draw any of your locks. Don't tell me you were also using Usurper. Ok, deal with it, it happens, not because this is Gwent, in every single card game, this can happen.

 

[EmilyWoW]

I don't know about you, but I build my decks in ways where I don't include filler trash that automatically costs me the game when I draw it. Maybe it's your deckbuilding?

Don't tell me that your decks would be exactly the same if the provision system wouldn't exist.

So you had 7 locks, and I guess a few more bronzes and golds for dealing damage, reset, remove or seize units. Basically a hard control deck, which is very frustrating to play agaisnt, and you didn't draw any of your locks. Don't tell me you were also using Usurper. Ok, deal with it, it happens, not because this is Gwent, in every single card game, this can happen.

Yup, Ursuper, obiously. The "If I have no fun you wouldn't either" deck.

Not all the card games. I play two CCG where you start with all your deck in your "hand", so no rng draws. That is imho the best possible design, however it's very different from gwent, so I don't advocate it here.

My biggest point with HC is that is combos and cards synergies are mandatory to win. Even if you take Magic: the gathering, which is the plainest CCG possible, there is a choice between playing a deck which relies on brute power of each card, or one which is dependant of a certain combos, with tutors for them. You don't have this choice in HC, it's draw the good cards or lose.

One of the promises made for HC was to fix the rng, especially the coin flip and the mulligans. We had exactly the opposite, the coin flips and the mulligans are more important then ever (why no one played ursuper when he had 0 mulligans?), and we have a loads of cards, and event a new brand archetype purely based on rng (reveal).

 

[4RM3D]

My biggest point with HC is that is combos and cards synergies are mandatory to win. Even if you take Magic: the gathering, which is the plainest CCG possible [...]

You were complaining about unlucky draws in HC and then you proceed to talk about MtG, which, arguably, has the most RNG draws of all time with its mana screw/flood. Incidentally, the mana problem is also the most discussed thread on the MtG forums.

 

[aldimon]

Don't tell me that your decks would be exactly the same if the provision system wouldn't exist.

Obviously not, but working with restrictions is what makes deckbuilding interesting. That's the same as saying "don't tell me your deck would the same if you couldn't just put in 1 copy of a gold card". I'd just include 25 Old Speartips.

 

[Pruny]

You were complaining about unlucky draws in HC and then you proceed to talk about MtG,

who cares about mtg, we want gwent better, that means more consistency
in my handbuff deck if i dont draw sheldon its autolose, before hc i had 3swordmasters and braen
and marching orders its mega expensive has zero sinergy with my deck now

 

[aldimon]

who cares about mtg, we want gwent better

MTG is the most successful and long-lasting card game for a reason, because it gets some of the fundamentals of a healthy game design right. Open Beta Gwent was fun, but its foundation was very weak. Non-interactive Gold, overpowered weather, incredibly punishing card advantage. Those things were maybe part of the Gwent experience, but they were also the biggest weakness of the game.

that means more consistency

While old Gwent was somewhat more consistent, this is just nostalgia. In Beta Gwent, games were sometimes decided before a single player played a card, because you could tell who was going to win from the opening hand. And variety is important for a card game.

in my handbuff deck if i dont draw sheldon its autolose, before hc i had 3swordmasters and braen
and marching orders its mega expensive has zero sinergy with my deck now

Then maybe try to get better at deckbuilding, and if that's not for you, look up decklists on the internet. If your entire deck relies on one card that you can't reliably get, it's not the game's fault, it's yours.
If marching orders has no synergy with your deck, it doesn't belong in there. End of story. This is NOT the game's fault.

Variety, complexity in deckbuilding, cards with more than one dimension for balancing, cards that are big on the battlefield, all those things are important for a game in the long run.

You can post videos of the old beta Gwent here all day long, and I had a lot of fun with it before the Midwinter update, but it would have slowly died out because there's not a whole lot to do with it. You basically only had three different strength levels, so every Gold had to give you the same value (standalone or synergistic) or else it was unplayable. With the provisions system, you have an OCEAN of space to design cards that wasn't there before.

No hand limit also meant that engines were quickly out-tempo'd, so little mistakes were punished severely by putting you at a card disadvantage - driving away new players quickly.

There are some things that were better in Open Beta Gwent, I won't deny that. Some cards weren't as binary or at least less binary as they are now. That's... about it.

Variety in card types, synergies that aren't obvious (open Beta Gwent basically relied on Unga synergies), complex deckbuilding, all of that is important for a game in the long run.

You sound a lot like a bitter kid.

 

[nedders]

Ok, so to second the thoughts above - and please don't call me noob, I was always 19-20 (never 21, though!) as a casual beta player, usually running a hated Imlerith deck or a good all-round Shupe ST deck with pit-trap/Pavko and Zoltan as a good tempo control move. I know what I'm doing.

Had a spare bit of time this morning, wont go on too much but fiddled around with one deck that had power witchers in it, first game I played (did win by 1 point) had them but couldn't use them, the NR oppo had nothing but low levels! So I thought I'd move to a bit more of a removal ST deck, brought in Sihil to be annoying, but kept one big removal (Geralt) just in case. Immediately - and for the first time - played against the SK bear deck and didn't get the ONLY card (Geralt) that could counter it. My deck build was fine, I had a card to counter but it didn't appear! Also Sihil ended up dealing about 35+ points on its own, but I lost by like 40 points!!!!!

It's not "luck", it's algorithm. I just don't like the algorithm and wish it would change.

 

[aldimon]

Ok, so to second the thoughts above - and please don't call me noob, I was always 19-20 (never 21, though!) as a casual beta player, usually running a hated Imlerith deck or a good all-round Shupe ST deck with pit-trap/Pavko and Zoltan as a good tempo control move. I know what I'm doing.

Just because you're good at playing doesn't mean you're good at deckbuilding.
Old Gwent Deckbuilding was much simpler and one-dimensional than it is now.

 

[Pruny]

M
You can post videos of the old beta Gwent here all day long, and I had a lot of fun with it before the Midwinter update, but it would have slowly died out because there's not a whole lot to do with it. You basically only had three different strength levels, so every Gold had to give you the same value (standalone or synergistic) or else it was unplayable. With the provisions system, you have an OCEAN of space to design cards that wasn't there before.

No hand limit also meant that engines were quickly out-tempo'd, so little mistakes were punished severely by putting you at a card disadvantage - driving away new players quickly.

There are some things that were better in Open Beta Gwent, I won't deny that. Some cards weren't as binary or at least less binary as they are now. That's... about it.

Variety in card types, synergies that aren't obvious (open Beta Gwent basically relied on Unga synergies), complex deckbuilding, all of that is important for a game in the long run.
You sound a lot like a bitter kid.

Provisions are useless crap, even top players agree to that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gwent/comments/a571nn i am bitter because cdpr instead of improving the game they destroyed arhetypes and gameplay.

 

[aldimon]

Alright, we'll agree to disagree. Guess there's no point in arguing with you.

 

[Vaerynn]

I don't know about you, but I build my decks in ways where I don't include filler trash that automatically costs me the game when I draw it. Maybe it's your deckbuilding?

While old Gwent was somewhat more consistent, this is just nostalgia. In Beta Gwent, games were sometimes decided before a single player played a card, because you could tell who was going to win from the opening hand. And variety is important for a card game.

I am very lost and very confused by your responses.

Maybe it was your deckbuilding in Gwent Beta? Perhaps, it was just bad luck? And if it were luck-based, how would you mitigate that problem? Or are you simply apathetic about luck?

Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes.

Variety is important for a card game?
Variety in your deck or card pool? And if in a deck, why?

-

"Somewhat more consistent, this is just nostalgia"

Is this a contradiction? Or do you mean Yes, Gwent Beta was more consistent?
Decks (in general) were objectively more consistent in the Beta.

 

[EmilyWoW]

MTG is the most successful and long-lasting card game for a reason, because it gets some of the fundamentals of a healthy game design right. Open Beta Gwent was fun, but its foundation was very weak. Non-interactive Gold, overpowered weather, incredibly punishing card advantage. Those things were maybe part of the Gwent experience, but they were also the biggest weakness of the game.



While old Gwent was somewhat more consistent, this is just nostalgia. In Beta Gwent, games were sometimes decided before a single player played a card, because you could tell who was going to win from the opening hand. And variety is important for a card game.



Then maybe try to get better at deckbuilding, and if that's not for you, look up decklists on the internet. If your entire deck relies on one card that you can't reliably get, it's not the game's fault, it's yours.
If marching orders has no synergy with your deck, it doesn't belong in there. End of story. This is NOT the game's fault.

Variety, complexity in deckbuilding, cards with more than one dimension for balancing, cards that are big on the battlefield, all those things are important for a game in the long run.

You can post videos of the old beta Gwent here all day long, and I had a lot of fun with it before the Midwinter update, but it would have slowly died out because there's not a whole lot to do with it. You basically only had three different strength levels, so every Gold had to give you the same value (standalone or synergistic) or else it was unplayable. With the provisions system, you have an OCEAN of space to design cards that wasn't there before.

No hand limit also meant that engines were quickly out-tempo'd, so little mistakes were punished severely by putting you at a card disadvantage - driving away new players quickly.

There are some things that were better in Open Beta Gwent, I won't deny that. Some cards weren't as binary or at least less binary as they are now. That's... about it.

Variety in card types, synergies that aren't obvious (open Beta Gwent basically relied on Unga synergies), complex deckbuilding, all of that is important for a game in the long run.

You sound a lot like a bitter kid.

I first speak about Mtg (or Berserk, or L5R, or Pokemon or any game of this generation), because I feel it's stupid to make 80's-90's games mistakes in 2018. MtG cannot change his core mechanic of land/mana and first hand, because it's a fundamental. Gwent/HC had the possibility to sway away from it especially with the leitmotiv that the game is strategic and has less random, but did approximately the same mistakes (first hand importance), and just used some plaster to try to smooth it (mulligans).

I also totally disagree about your comparaison with old gwent - yes it had some established meta deck, which were very previsible, but I assure you that the new gwent will be far worse, because it has even less interesting and competitive archetypes. You could already seen it with the dominance of Ethne-Control control before the patch, and the overabundance of Monster/Ghouls, and Beastmasters now. (You could also note that the best archetypes are those who eliminate a maximum of rng by using graveyard to play.)

You say that in old gwent some match were decided before even playing? I could say you that I'm sure at 75% if I'm gonna win or lose when I see my first hand after mulligans, and opponent hero. And the missing 25% are just about the opponent first hand. It's not fun, and even not normal.

Provision are just another plaster over a broken mechanic. It absolutely denies the fact that different cards have different values in different decks (would you use Old Speartip in a deck without ghouls/ozzie?). It makes deckbuilding unnecessary complex for new players, and even mid-level players, that will lead to even more netdecking then in the Beta. It will be a hell to balance, and this hell will repeat after any new card will be added (if the game survives so far).

¨Plainly speaking, provision are just a way to force players to use maximum provision/points value according to their archetype; so it's no way an "ocean" of possibilities.

 

[Esmer]

You were complaining about unlucky draws in HC and then you proceed to talk about MtG, which, arguably, has the most RNG draws of all time with its mana screw/flood. Incidentally, the mana problem is also the most discussed thread on the MtG forums.

MtG has a lot of mechanics to fix mana screw/flood. Scry, surveil, explore, jump-start, draw-discard, etc.
Additionally, every color has some kind of tutors or card draw.

Even the most simple aggro decks with a primitive game plan (you play creatures, you hit face) have ways to avoid issues with mana.

And control decks have insane amount of mana fixing and ways to disrupt your opponent's strategy.

Of course, some games are decided by draws, but generally decision making is very important. What's even more important, is that you have multiple answers to the same threat. It never comes to "woodland spirit has a 14 points ghoul, I have neither scorch, nor Peter, nor Yrden, I lose".

Post automatically merged: Dec 12, 2018

Old Gwent Deckbuilding was much simpler and one-dimensional than it is now.

Sure, that's why there were 20+ competitive (rank 20+ viable) decks by the end on the beta. Deckbuilding must be so hard in HC that even the best deckbuilders cannot come up with anything better than big monsters or removal spam.

Post automatically merged: Dec 12, 2018

Not all the card games. I play two CCG where you start with all your deck in your "hand", so no rng draws. That is imho the best possible design, however it's very different from gwent, so I don't advocate it here.

Which games are those? One is probably Prismata, and the other one?

 

[nedders]

I've tried to post a deck, it's move to "help with ST deck thread", which I conveniently cannot find.

Just played - and lost - two games in a row, both have the look & feel of something that is designed to make me lose. I have emailed CDPR to state that I feel abd believe the game is rigged, from the experiences I have. I have performed consistently worse since messaging them directly but I'm saying no more for fear of going mad and making a hat out of tin foil.

I had a quick look at "GwentUp" to see if I'm doing something wrong, but my deck(s) are as well designed and thought out as those on there. Hell, some I've tried are the same. The point is, it's not the deck, so either level 14/15 of HC76 is actually full of top-drawer players these days, or something's wrong with the game entirely.

As per the original point, there is no strategy to any game that is pre-designed to make you win or lose based on the deck you face, and the deal you get.

CDPR are making EA look honest.

 

[4RM3D]

I've tried to post a deck, it's move to "help with ST deck thread", which I conveniently cannot find.

I've moved the post to a dedicated thread because it went off-topic. I also sent you a message about the new thread. For the record: Need Advice About my ST Deck

 

[aldimon]

I've tried to post a deck, it's move to "help with ST deck thread", which I conveniently cannot find.

Just played - and lost - two games in a row, both have the look & feel of something that is designed to make me lose. I have emailed CDPR to state that I feel abd believe the game is rigged, from the experiences I have. I have performed consistently worse since messaging them directly but I'm saying no more for fear of going mad and making a hat out of tin foil.

I had a quick look at "GwentUp" to see if I'm doing something wrong, but my deck(s) are as well designed and thought out as those on there. Hell, some I've tried are the same. The point is, it's not the deck, so either level 14/15 of HC76 is actually full of top-drawer players these days, or something's wrong with the game entirely.

As per the original point, there is no strategy to any game that is pre-designed to make you win or lose based on the deck you face, and the deal you get.

CDPR are making EA look honest.

Jesus christ dude, chill. You're going off the rails