Dude, I wish you could watch the plays. Maybe you'd understand.
Dude, I wish you could watch the plays. Maybe you'd understand.
Deckbuilding has never felt so constricted. Ever.
The provision system (coupled with the changing of all the card abilities) has made it a chore to build any deck. Before you could have anywhere between 25-40 cards in your deck and everything served a purpose.
Now so many of the cards feel disjointed, so you're trying to guess - "ok if this doesn't work with my synergy but I have to put it in anyway because it's a 4 provision card, in what way would it be better than this other 4-provision card that doesn't do anything with my concept either".
And everyone and their aunty is running 25 card decks, because it makes no sense to have bigger decks. Thank you provision system!
Please stop defending this provision garbage. Before you had to include 15 bronzes, but you could choose which ones and you indeed had an OCEAN of possibilities. And you could put them in whichever proportion you wanted - 1 2 or 3 - some decks you wanted super consistency so you went with 3, others with 2 (Ciri: Nova for instance), others with 1 (Shupe) and in many other decks you mixed it up.
Now you are mathematically forced to have some 4 and 5 provision cards (at least if you are running *some* golds). But what if you don't want any of these cards?? Well tough luck, you have to put them in anyway. And you're just gonna hope you don't get too many of them in your hand at any one time, and you're just gonna use them as throwaway cards either to thin your deck or when you don't want to play your turn.
It's absolutely ridiculous. The provisions system is one of the worst things to ever happen to this game, and people are promoting it like the best invention ever.
The provision system (coupled with the changing of all the card abilities) has made it a chore to build any deck. Before you could have anywhere between 25-40 cards in your deck and everything served a purpose.
Now so many of the cards feel disjointed, so you're trying to guess - "ok if this doesn't work with my synergy but I have to put it in anyway because it's a 4 provision card, in what way would it be better than this other 4-provision card that doesn't do anything with my concept either".
And everyone and their aunty is running 25 card decks, because it makes no sense to have bigger decks. Thank you provision system!
Please stop defending this provision garbage. Before you had to include 15 bronzes, but you could choose which ones and you indeed had an OCEAN of possibilities. And you could put them in whichever proportion you wanted - 1 2 or 3 - some decks you wanted super consistency so you went with 3, others with 2 (Ciri: Nova for instance), others with 1 (Shupe) and in many other decks you mixed it up.
Now you are mathematically forced to have some 4 and 5 provision cards (at least if you are running *some* golds). But what if you don't want any of these cards?? Well tough luck, you have to put them in anyway. And you're just gonna hope you don't get too many of them in your hand at any one time, and you're just gonna use them as throwaway cards either to thin your deck or when you don't want to play your turn.
It's absolutely ridiculous. The provisions system is one of the worst things to ever happen to this game, and people are promoting it like the best invention ever.
The solution is actually fairly simple, put in less expensive golds so you can put in bronzes that are better on average. This will also become easier over time once the cardpool is expanded
Jesus, this should be called the Salt thread.
I like salt. Epicurists delight. Goes with everything, enhances flavour. Salt is, in short, good.
Look, the game is conceptually poor. Provisions doesn't work, hand size is wrong, mulligans wrong. It all comes full circle back to the point that strategy takes a back seat in this game in favour of RNGsus deals, with the added issue that the matchmaking algorithm isn't purely based on MMR but instead takes into account your deck.
Nobody has come onto this thread and offered a solid case that strategy is the key component of HC76. There's moaning, there's tin-foil conspiracy complaints (me), there's defending, but what there's a huge lack of is anyone stating for a fact that strategy exceeds random. CDPR launched an online version of a one player game, and it shows, instead of improving Gwent Beta through community feedback.
It's a most infuriating, random number generation experience.
You're more than welcome to. I'd really appreciate it if you could expand on that comment though? I know it's a pain, but you can't really disagree with 2 points:
1) Salt is good.
2) Nobody has offered a full explanation as to WHY. Your "I disagree" comment is testimony to this.
Thanks!
You'll change your tune in a few months. All complaints are valid. This game is an empty shell of what Gwent used to be and more frustrating than has ever been. Thanks for butchering Gwent CDPR.
That's exactly the reason why some people defend HC: RNG helps them to win games they otherwise couldn't. To put it in other words, old Gwent had a high skill cap, HC doesn't. And that's why so many old players left.
I am also 99% sure that these very same people who defend HC now will also hate the game as soon as their skill raises enough to see that RNG limits their winrate against worse players.
In old Gwent you had to learn how to blacklist during mulligans, how to play around mulligan bug and how not to brick your hand. You had to know when to pass, and when to play, when to push, and when to dump your useless cards. You also had to swap one or two of your cards to tech against meta when climbing up the ranks. Damn, even choosing a row to put your unit in required skill (even though many ppl disliked agility update).
With HC all of it is gone. Hand limit, dumb mulligans, locked row abilities, restrictive provision system, lack of thinning, autoinclude neutral cards, etc. They managed to butcher everything that made Gwent stand out from other CCGs. I am not even talking about super slow card play/deploy/effect animations, annoying leader sounds (I just hate how Eithne shouts when shooting) and dark battlefields.
Last edited:
I'd like to watch them as well. You talk as if none of us played the game, you can just check if that's the case searching our names in the game.
Nope, I'm talking this way because the pro-HC76 seem to not experience the same thing - we should all be having the same experiences, should we not? That's what confuses me.
There's posts aplenty from people who are experiencing the same broken mechanics, so I am trying to get to the bottom of it. Whether it's a bad algorithm on matchup, a "momentum" type mechanic, playing against the AI and not other real people or it's genuinely just a bad game, I'd like to understand. The "not knowing" is what's really pissing me off. No amount of "you're wrong, it's a great game" is going to help!
The mulligan and blacklisting system in old Gwent was never properly explained and was difficult to figure out for players without consulting external sources. Gwent should be a game that's easy to learn but difficult to master. The aforementioned mulligan/blacklisting system was the exact opposite, difficult to learn but easy to master and as such isn't an argument for the game being more skilled to play. In other words, it had the wrong kind of complexity.
Ya, the truth is that system was difficult to learn, easy to master.
But i have to disagree that it wasn't skilled system.
Yeah, it's well good is HC76. All about strategy.
Yep, that's my Speartip on their side. Yep, that's a Bomb Heaver and a Spotter in my Monster deck. Yep, the oppo really did draw their top provision cards across R1, 2 and 3. They also played Scorch to get rid of my Ozzrel. They had Peter JUST IN CASE I did less than 13 damage to their Tibor (which incidentally drew the bomb heaver). It's almost as if they had the exact hand, at the right time, to beat my deck. Every reveal unit worked, as well. Arbalast/Infantry.
All about strategy. Random doesn't even come into it.
You are absolutely right: it's very difficult to master RNG.
Properly explaining it to players is easy, you can do it like this: "When you mulligan a card, you will not draw a card with the same name during this mulligan phase". Or CDPR could explain this in a specific portion of the tutorial. As far as I remember, Gwent's tutorial taught players much harder concepts than this one. And it would be much easier to explain a good working mechanic than to erase it.
Finally, upon hearing "easy to learn but difficult to master" I immediately think about Blizzard's games. Specifically, HS's ridiculous RNG, Overwatch's horrible matchmaking (90% of games are one way stomp-ride), HotS's toxicity and, to top it all, slaughtered Diablo series in the name of a mobile game from a Chinese developer. So yeah, great memories.
Don't you think people are a bit tired from this "easy to learn, everyone should have 50% winrate, every player needs to have an equal chance of winning" Blizzard-style mentality?
Dota 2 is incredibly hard to learn, and almost impossible to master game (as well as PUBG), yet those games have millions of players putting hundreds of hours into those games.
CDPR will never achieve success by simplifying things this much, because HS will always be two steps ahead.
^^ This.
Just played a game and lost as a Monster experiment running arachas because the Skellige deck had Epidemic. It is literally the first time I've seen epidemic in ANY hand, and it was in a Skellige deck!!! What was it doing there, why would they use 9 provisions for epidemic? They then had 4 golds in R2, including witcher summon, and a bomb heaver just to shit on petris filter, of all cards. They then passed at EXACTLY the right point, I could do nothing and would have been -2 CA, at best.
It's just random loss after random loss after random loss.
Just played a game and lost as a Monster experiment running arachas because the Skellige deck had Epidemic. It is literally the first time I've seen epidemic in ANY hand, and it was in a Skellige deck!!! What was it doing there, why would they use 9 provisions for epidemic? They then had 4 golds in R2, including witcher summon, and a bomb heaver just to shit on petris filter, of all cards. They then passed at EXACTLY the right point, I could do nothing and would have been -2 CA, at best.
It's just random loss after random loss after random loss.
Complexity should follow naturally from the amount of choices you have available, with no obvious right path, not from trying to figure out how the game works. Besides, making the game accessible does not mean injecting it with so much RNG that everyone can win at least some matches.
DotA and PUBG require finesse. The learning curve is not so much gaining knowledge as it is improving hand to eye coordination. People who are dexterous generally excel at shooters, while people who are smart generally excel at turn-based games. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive and the statement is simplified, but the point still stands: apples and oranges.
There you go. Look at the spread of cards I'm up against in this, with no tutors. There are SIX golds in play for the oppo, FOUR in the graveyard. This is what I'm dealing with 4 out of 5 games. It's a relentless stream of pathetically unbalanced games. Wtf for? Is this right?
That is not a solution. You will lose to people who use higher value cards in their deck on average. You would be just setting yourself up for failure. For someone who mentions deckbuilding, you seem a bit oblivious...
Your other comment is just irrelevant and there to provoke, in other words not appropriate nor an arguement. But that's okay. Mods don't much mind about that one.