ZERO strategy - what is wrong with HC76

+
Wouldn't it be reasonable to explain WHY you are having doubts of my seriousness? I mean you shouldn't just start questioning people's sincerity as a moderator without at least explaining what your reasons are.

Anyway, I believe there is a problem with what you said about 6.7% or whatever, because you have to take into account the various synergies that go along with a card as well!! What if you have two identical cards, one for Skellige and the other for SC. The card says, "If you have 3 Skellige faction cards on the field, you win the game". If that card was in SC it would have a provision costs of 0. If it was in Skellige it would have a provision cost of 1000. But it's the same card. That is a ridiculously absurd example that I'm using to just show that the exact same text is going to mean very different things depeneding on how it synergizes with other cards throughout the game's various situations.

So I'm saying Geralt: Yrden may be an 11 out of 15 in 40% of decks. But in 60% decks it may be a 15 out of 15. As opposed to every other 11 out of 15 which is an 11 out of 15 100% of the time. Again, another absurd example, not meant to throw you off, but the point is to show that there may be some synergy with Yrden that sometimes places its power level much higher than the other 11 provision cards are usually able to go.

This is why it could be useful for the provision cost to be able to reflect things such as that. How situational is Yrden? How much can it be exploited? A perfectly exploited Yrden might be drastically more powerful than its usual effectiviness level in the hands of the average player. I just think that if the provision costs numbers are too compact it becomes difficult to reflect nuances such as those.

Basically, I think ur 6.7% theory of incrimental power increases between the provision costs, falls apart across various actual gameplay situations. Like I said before, if I implemented provisions into MTG. I would give all the banned and OP cards a provision costs of 1000+. That way you could introduce formats where the deck limit was set to 500. And so all those 1000 provision cards would be unplayable. Or you could have a format of 2500 where TWO of those banned/OP cards could be used and so on. It's about context. It's not about cold hard math. What if clever use of provision costs could actually make it OKAY for CDPR to print blantantly overpowered cards? They would just have really high provision costs to make them reasonable. No card game has an allowance for INTENDED imba. But with provisions you could actually do that. Have an open mind. This is uncharted territory as far as I know.

I mean let's say they put an Exodia or something i this game. But each piece of Exodia had a provision cost of 25? Of course the game in its current state would have to have mulligan rules adjusted for something like that but THEORETICALLY. You could have very strong concepts introduced that are balanced specifically by provision costs. IT's a freedom that Hearthstone devs and MTG devs DO NOT HAVE. And you guys should be excited that CDPR came up with this concept for GWENT. I mean we could have a Dr. BOOM. We could have a mysterious challenger. Just give make them cost 35 provisions each!!

Also, considering how new the system is, I don't get how your expectations for 0-15 could have possibly solidified for any logical reason at this point.
If you implemented provisions into Magic, the entire community would get their pitchforks and torches out for you.
Why do you think Magic survived this long without doing stuff like that? It doesn't need halfbaked "solutions" like the provision system, which is NOT a freedom btw, it's a restriction and if you can't see that, then I'm seriously worried for you.

Edit.: To address your idea of making the provision system more intricate: this would be a very complex and tedious process for balancing, and - and I'm sad to say this - the devs have shown in the past that they do not put much thought and effort into balancing, they mostly give +1 to cards that see "too much play" and -1 to cards that see too little. You would have to think through every possible synergy for every card and give that a number in context to every other card with all of that cards synergies...thats too much work, and impossible to get right
 
Next we come to the artifact hotfix. What did that do? Jacked up the cost on artifacts. It almost appears as if artifacts were seeing a lot of play, players were complaining about them so someone pulled a card usage stat sheet and checked off nerf boxes next to artifact cards. Insert the hotfix and artifact provision costs were inflated. It sort of kind of worked for a while because people were apprehensive about paying the new and improved cost of artifacts. A bit of time rolls by and those builds were tweaked and adjusted. Artifact/spell spam abuse decks still exist. They're not very good but they do exist.

Next comes the December patch. Once again, it appears someone pulled up a usage sheet and saw Eithne all over the place. Players were complaining about Eithne. The solution? Nerf Eithne into oblivion and virtually every single card it was using. The result? Everyone stopped playing it. In other words, an overreaction destroyed the concept. Furthermore, other ST builds got to soak up collateral damage because a single deck concept was oppressive.

Again, great in theory. In practice, not so much. I'd like to believe there will be improvements down the line. Unfortunately, I've seen the hamster wheel spin enough times, the promises and the disappointment to find it difficult.

I actually made a post about spell/artifact decks. Most people ignored it. I said that if you introduce a FORMATIONS concept into the game where units get boosts and abilities based on how you arrange them on the board, then artifacts will naturallly become worse because spamming them will restrain your ability to complete unit formations on your side of the field.

I never said GWENT balance was perfect. And maybe they should still call it Beta insetad of full release. But I still think they are objectively in a great position to improve the game substantially. And the amount of FREE STUFF they give to us makes this the most generous card game I've ever played so I can show them patience and understanding as they try to figure it out. This isn't Artifact or HS which are probably the two most expensive and stingy games out there. So I'm not going to give them a hard time for making a few mistakes because they are still in a great position to make some really great improvements because of the foundation they've laid.
Post automatically merged:

If you implemented provisions into Magic, the entire community would get their pitchforks and torches out for you.
Why do you think Magic survived this long without doing stuff like that? It doesn't need halfbaked "solutions" like the provision system, which is NOT a freedom btw, it's a restriction and if you can't see that, then I'm seriously worried for you.

Edit.: To address your idea of making the provision system more intricate: this would be a very complex and tedious process for balancing, and - and I'm sad to say this - the devs have shown in the past that they do not put much thought and effort into balancing, they mostly give +1 to cards that see "too much play" and -1 to cards that see too little. You would have to think through every possible synergy for every card and give that a number in context to every other card with all of that cards synergies...thats too much work, and impossible to get right

There are trade offs to adding provisions to MTG. But there are alot of OLD OLD cards that have been banned for a long time. What if you could bring them ALL back? I think some players might be very interested in that. Then Wizards could sell these old cards digitally too and get some more revenue.
 
Wouldn't it be reasonable to explain WHY you are having doubts of my seriousness? I mean you shouldn't just start questioning people's sincerity as a moderator without at least explaining what your reasons are.

True, but when someone starts talking about Dragonball power levels... you know: "Hey, look, that card's over 9000!" The provision system doesn't need more than 15 tiers. Heck, the devs already have enough of a challenge balancing that, let alone adding an even finer spread (aka more tiers).

[...] because you have to take into account the various synergies that go along with a card as well!

Your whole explanation basically comes down to what I've put between quotes. The synergies is but one aspect of a card, which also influences the maximum potential as well as the average value and how easy the card can achieve such value. All these things need to be considered, which makes tweaking cards quite a challenging task.

The thing is, the aforementioned issue has been a problem since the start of Gwent. And sure, back then, only having 3 tiers made it difficult to fit every card into one of the tiers. But, now, with 15 tiers, there is already enough wiggle room. Adding more tiers reduces the effectiveness up to a point it will actually start to impact the game negatively.

No matter how many numbers you have, it's difficult to give a card a numerical value because of all the aspects that need to be taken into account.

If you implemented provisions into Magic, the entire community would get their pitchforks and torches out for you.
Why do you think Magic survived this long without doing stuff like that? It doesn't need halfbaked "solutions" like the provision system, which is NOT a freedom btw, it's a restriction and if you can't see that, then I'm seriously worried for you.

Half-baked solution? The provision system has arisen as a necessity in order to be able to tweak cards where normally a mana system would serve such function. But, because of the nature of Gwent, a mana system is not possible. This also means MtG doesn't need a provision system.
 
Again it only has 12 [...]

Yes, it only has 12 now, but it started out with 15 and it's possible the devs will release cheaper provision cards again (or more expensive ones). Regardless, all this is still irrelevant for the point I was trying to make.

[...] asymmetrical too.

Yes, more expensive cards have a lower point to provision ratio (on average) to offset the power swing. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, the devs haven't implemented this on the lower end of the spectrum. 4 provision cards should give 5 total value but not have any damage options. The next tier (5) could have some damage ability for the same amount of value. Damage capabilities should always be a bit more expensive. I am not going into the math of this, though. Besides it giving me a headache, it's not the topic of the thread.
 
Half-baked solution? The provision system has arisen as a necessity in order to be able to tweak cards where normally a mana system would serve such function. But, because of the nature of Gwent, a mana system is not possible. This also means MtG doesn't need a provision system.
2pvodd.jpg


Honestly, I understand the necessity of provisions, and in theory I like the concept...I just cannot bring myself to like what was done with the system. Maybe I'd care less about provisions if we still had a 3rd bronze copy.
 
True, but when someone starts talking about Dragonball power levels... you know: "Hey, look, that card's over 9000!" The provision system doesn't need more than 15 tiers. Heck, the devs already have enough of a challenge balancing that, let alone adding an even finer spread (aka more tiers).



Your whole explanation basically comes down to what I've put between quotes. The synergies is but one aspect of a card, which also influences the maximum potential as well as the average value and how easy the card can achieve such value. All these things need to be considered, which makes tweaking cards quite a challenging task.

The thing is, the aforementioned issue has been a problem since the start of Gwent. And sure, back then, only having 3 tiers made it difficult to fit every card into one of the tiers. But, now, with 15 tiers, there is already enough wiggle room. Adding more tiers reduces the effectiveness up to a point it will actually start to impact the game negatively.

No matter how many numbers you have, it's difficult to give a card a numerical value because of all the aspects that need to be taken into account.



Half-baked solution? The provision system has arisen as a necessity in order to be able to tweak cards where normally a mana system would serve such function. But, because of the nature of Gwent, a mana system is not possible. This also means MtG doesn't need a provision system.

I don't see it as a Tier system. And you know what, it's hilarious you set out to mock me with a dragon ball reference, because I'd never thought about it that way. But you know what? It's a great analogy. There is a saying, "Things that work well in nature, naturally repeat themselves." Spheres, hexagons, symmetry. Card games, and power levels.

There is a reason why people like to watch explosions on TV. There is a reason people like it when the good guy wins in the best movies. There is a reason why MILLIONS if not biillions of people around the world have been captivated by the concept of DBZ power levels. Why not rank the cards in your card game with a power level? Why not? It makes perfect fucking sense.

And since you think you're the only one capable of mocking other people. I'll just say that the Dewey decimal system is used to catalog books and a power ranking system could be likewise used to catalog cards by which type of format you want said cards to be allowed to be played in.

You want allow yourself to understand this, but if CDPR released some promotional fun cards that were a bit out of balance or off faction identity, they could give those cards a provision rating of 500, 1000, etc. Then they can say "Special Christmas Tournamnt Provision Limit 3300" Meaning you can put 2 500's and 2 1000's OR 6 500's in your deck.

Look I can't hold your hand through every possible application for maximizing the use of provisions vs what you want to see which is its minimization. And I tip my hat to you for how knowledgeable you are about the game that you know for certainty that the game must have only 15 tiers and no other number. That's pretty smart
 
Provisions are just dumb, you put high cost card that forces you too add junk to your deck, its the same braindead Ciri Nova style again but even worse because its general now.
And dont tell me provisions is good for balancing, sihil and spears are still OP.
 
You want allow yourself to understand this, but if CDPR released some promotional fun cards that were a bit out of balance or off faction identity...
So cards like HC Wolfsbane/Golden Froth/Sihil/Artifacts in general?
They did cost a liiiittle less than 1000 provisions though...
 
Look I can't hold your hand through every possible application for maximizing the use of provisions vs what you want to see which is its minimization. And I tip my hat to you for how knowledgeable you are about the game that you know for certainty that the game must have only 15 tiers and no other number. That's pretty smart

I don't think anyone questions the potential for the provision system to improve the game. The question is whether that potential is ever going to be realized. The reasons behind that question stem from past events. In short, they couldn't get the simple 3 tier card system right. Adding more granularity to the tuning dials may increase the "design space". Unfortunately, having more freedom in balance also tends to raise the chances of fucking it up. If balance was not achievable with a simple system it's not going to happen with a more complicated system.

If you had not noticed I've been attempting to tread carefully here. I could simplify all of this and say I don't think this development team is going to use the provision system properly or manage it well. I find it more likely they're going to use it to slap band-aids on problem areas. Part of this view comes from decisions made in the past. Part of it comes from the changes made in the HC updates.
 
This „HC76“-Phrase is annoying, childish, and disrespective. The flaws of Homecoming have nothing to do with Bethesdas behaviour. Im sure CDPR will fix the Problems and Gwent will have a bright Future. I have more fun now than i had in beta.
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
This „HC76“-Phrase is annoying, childish, and disrespective. The flaws of Homecoming have nothing to do with Bethesdas behaviour. Im sure CDPR will fix the Problems and Gwent will have a bright Future. I have more fun now than i had in beta.
And why you dont have this same believe in bethesda?
 
I'm not an expert on card games. I never analyzed strategies in depth and I'm just an average player.

All I know is, I go into the deck builder and there's nothing fun. Synergies are lacking. It's spam points and spam stuff that damages stuff.

The deckbuilding comes down to selecting good golds and then just filling the rest of the deck with whatever. I really think the Gold/Silver/Bronze system was much better, as well as 3 bronzes.
 
And why you dont have this same believe in bethesda?
I think they tested how far they can go in milking their cow and finally went too far with it. Now, with their Fallout 76-Desaster, they have to change a lot and they will.
CDPR has had the guts to try new ways in order to make things better. I respect that.
 
I think they tested how far they can go in milking their cow and finally went too far with it. Now, with their Fallout 76-Desaster, they have to change a lot and they will.
CDPR has had the guts to try new ways in order to make things better. I respect that.
Interesting, you seem to know a lot about the decisions in both companies.
Who tells us it wasn't Bethesda trying new ways, and CDPR trying to milk their holy cow?
 
I think they tested how far they can go in milking their cow and finally went too far with it. Now, with their Fallout 76-Desaster, they have to change a lot and they will.
CDPR has had the guts to try new ways in order to make things better. I respect that.
This is selective perception at its best. You assume something for one and other for second one but they did the same.

CDRed was at a dead end with Gwent (at least for their marketing i guess) and wanted something new they can sell. NOw less and less people want to play this mess they created and now they change the economics to at least gain something out of it.
i doubt CDRed will save this game before its totally broken down.
 
I'm not an expert on card games. I never analyzed strategies in depth and I'm just an average player.

All I know is, I go into the deck builder and there's nothing fun. Synergies are lacking. It's spam points and spam stuff that damages stuff.

The deckbuilding comes down to selecting good golds and then just filling the rest of the deck with whatever. I really think the Gold/Silver/Bronze system was much better, as well as 3 bronzes.

Your opinion that there is "nothing fun" is purely subjective. You probably did not even try to look up synergies and "filling the rest of the deck with whatever" is not true and does not work that way. I have 2 decks per each faction that I find really fun and complex. Generally I have noticed that for each faction, the main archetypes synergise so that there is not only one archetype possible per deck, but two properly fleshed out. Just some examples: Soldiers with lock in Nilfgaard, Specter with humans in Northern Realms, Consume with Deathwish in Monsters.

For example, a fun deck is control Deathwish where you remove their lower units with Miruna, Werecat, Rotfiend and stuff like that in order to destroy their engines and big point cards with Predatory Dive and Manticore (that can play its effect a ton of times with Ge'els, Unseen Elder, Whispering Hillock, Caranthir, Kayran, Renew and Ritual Sacrifice). How can you call that lack of synergies? Furthermore, the bronzes in the deck synergize and are not filler. Ancient Foglet synergizes with Predatory Dive, most consume units synergise with deathwish units, and as you saw the golds synergise with the bronzes by repeating their effects to control the board. This deck is really fun to play and you have a lot of possibilities depending on your hand, you do not need to draw a lot of golds to win and you can adapt your strategy, from controlling the board with Manticore to going for a huge board and finish with Ritual Sacrifice. You also have a ton of options, like choosing to put in Ruehin and Slyzards to have an alternate win condition.

And the "spam points and spam stuff that damages stuff" is really shallow as well. With that you could describe every game in existence, like for any fighter game: "just roll and wait to attack until the enemy is dead". Since you win by points it is obvious that you want to increase your points or decrease your opponents', but this often involves clever tactics.

I am not saying that Gwent Homecoming is the perfect game but with some changes like an increase in consistency and some new cards it can be a wonderful game. Your shortsightedness and possibly melancholy towards the old Gwent is stopping you from realizing that and enjoying the game.
 
Your opinion that there is "nothing fun" is purely subjective. You probably did not even try to look up synergies and "filling the rest of the deck with whatever" is not true and does not work that way. I have 2 decks per each faction that I find really fun and complex. Generally I have noticed that for each faction, the main archetypes synergise so that there is not only one archetype possible per deck, but two properly fleshed out. Just some examples: Soldiers with lock in Nilfgaard, Specter with humans in Northern Realms, Consume with Deathwish in Monsters.

For example, a fun deck is control Deathwish where you remove their lower units with Miruna, Werecat, Rotfiend and stuff like that in order to destroy their engines and big point cards with Predatory Dive and Manticore (that can play its effect a ton of times with Ge'els, Unseen Elder, Whispering Hillock, Caranthir, Kayran, Renew and Ritual Sacrifice). How can you call that lack of synergies? Furthermore, the bronzes in the deck synergize and are not filler. Ancient Foglet synergizes with Predatory Dive, most consume units synergise with deathwish units, and as you saw the golds synergise with the bronzes by repeating their effects to control the board. This deck is really fun to play and you have a lot of possibilities depending on your hand, you do not need to draw a lot of golds to win and you can adapt your strategy, from controlling the board with Manticore to going for a huge board and finish with Ritual Sacrifice. You also have a ton of options, like choosing to put in Ruehin and Slyzards to have an alternate win condition.

And the "spam points and spam stuff that damages stuff" is really shallow as well. With that you could describe every game in existence, like for any fighter game: "just roll and wait to attack until the enemy is dead". Since you win by points it is obvious that you want to increase your points or decrease your opponents', but this often involves clever tactics.

I am not saying that Gwent Homecoming is the perfect game but with some changes like an increase in consistency and some new cards it can be a wonderful game. Your shortsightedness and possibly melancholy towards the old Gwent is stopping you from realizing that and enjoying the game.
It should be added that most people talking about strategy and such are talking about competitive stuff.
Sure, you can build a lot of decks with a lot of fun little interactions, but if those decks aren't good enough in a competitive environment, the entire point is moot.
For example, in beta I had this fun little Kaedweni Revenant Swarm deck. It was a blast to play, had a lot of synergies (Henselt-Revenant-Siege Support-Flails-etc.) but it had a winratio of about 40%, so the deck was pretty much irrelevant to any discussion about strategy in Gwent, it couldn't win consistently and it certainly couldn't beat the meta (apart from consume Nekkers).
A good example for how one dimensional strategy in Gwent is, are the tournaments: how often did the person win, that targeted a specific deck he knew his opponents were running? I think last open Freddybabes demonstrated this perfectly, iirc he always won 3-2 making 4 decks that could beat the 1 deck every other guy was running and basically forfeiting to the other 2 decks.
 
Consistency is very punished in Hc76, i tried to use Last wish for some thinning and i allways draw crap or my finisher sheldon.
I understand cdpr wanted less autopilotdecks, but for beta players feels like Castrated Gwent.

Also marching orders should boost the unit by 1point.
 
Top Bottom