GwentDB was shut down on April 8th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-06-19 at 17:13, which we will support for as long as is viable. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Egoistik >>

    I haven't mentioned the rest because I couldn't see a point. I don't even understand what you mean by boosting. Do you mean that engines are creating boost points over time or that somebody plays one big boost?

    Whatever you mean: both things were present in beta.

    See, I don't even think that boosting is the right verbage, because it mixes up strategies that are very different in their core. If you look at beta, your word boosting would apply to old nekker decks as well as old spotter decks, but they were not the same. One deck won by building up points over time while the other one won by bringing a lot of points quick.
    Same goes for hc. Boosting can apply to a way of carry-over. It can apply to forms of engines and it can apply to tempo. These strategies are very different and by calling all of them just "boosting" makes diffent ways of play look just like one thing. It isn't one thing.

     

    You can't see the downsides of various strategies unless you experience them yourself. If you think that silver-witchers and roach are OP in R3 I would strongly recommand trying to integrate this combo in your deck to see how it really plays out instead of complaining other ones using OP strategies.
    Same goes for the Eredin decks you hate. I have no idea which 12 points immue you talking about, since I've seen Eredins ability being applied mostly on Dash, Ciri, Sabbath or Ge'els, but whatever it is, try it out yourself to see how much good execution has to go into setting up those plays.

    I strongly think that you just don't see how much your opponents pay to execute their combos in R3.

     The Eredin Deck I am talking about is mine. I use Frightener and Glutsyworp. Use Eredin's leader ability on Glutsy gives me a 16 powered Glutsyworp Immune and a 12 powered Frightener Immune. And then I use the cards that damage if I have the highest powered monster and because neither monster can be targeted it makes it difficult for anyone to break through. Beside Skell and all their "deal 8 damage among Random enemies". 

    And I already stated the Witchers was a personal distaste of mine. I already admitted that. I was merely pointing out that everybody uses it. I don't like the Witchers because I'd prefer to see more clever ways to win.

    And I disagree, Boosting to me is turning any powered creature from its original power to another power. Doesn't matter how you got there, you Boosted a 3 to a 12 somehow, someway. So Boosting no matter the R3 strategy is still technically the same.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Egoistik >>

    Why do you never calculate a risk somebody takes to get a high value play? Was the same with your critique of Sabbath.
    E.g. If you want to play all silver witchers plus roach in R3, you have to keep them in hand, save your mulligans and effectivly accept what you draw and additionally give up the bonus of thinning. Whoever makes this play in R3 - he deserves his 12 points without any doubts.

    I have roach and silver witchers in almost any deck and I play them diffently from game to game. This is what I meant by puzzling the strategy together on any playthrough. While my ideal scenario is playing witchers plus roach in R1, I might go for another execution strategy like playing them as a finisher depending on Hand and Opponent. I broke my long win-streak by being greedy and thinking that my opponent will drypass R2, because I set up R1 in a way, that I would gain CA in R2. Of course I didn't want him to play R2, just wanted to make it look like it's a bad idea. He played anyway and I had to play witchers and roach one by one.

    Needless to say that he won, but you can clearly see how the dynamic is. It's very risky and if you're opponent is smart enough, he can punish you for risk-taking.

    Comeback of tempo and old drawing mechanics will change this a lot and I think it will be more fun, but currently it's less fun more strategic.

     First off you can critique a card and not conflate the risk that it takes to play a certain card. Risk of playing the card doesn't make the card any less broken mechanically. Sabbath was broken, doesn't matter the kind of risk it took to play. There was no hard removal in old Gwent, we've had that discussion before. What I mean was there were answers to Sabbath, but - Alzur Thunder, they just rez him. Lock him, they just unlocked him. Wounded him, they just boosted him. There were answers, but they were not effective answers - Mandrake was probably the only effective answer due to it's banishment. 

    I was noting a pattern. I see a lot of Witchers being played Round 3, I wasn't critiquing that it was bad. I was simply stating it is a common strategy. One I don't particular like, but that's personal. The reasons I don't like it is because it's almost entirely a guaranteed win. Few cards I can think of summon another copy, and even then that's 2 not 3 sometimes 4. Nekkers are power 1, and that's just 2 powers to the 12. Riders from the Wild Hunt, but they are 4,so 8 to the 12. The issue is less about the cards and the play itself is nearly guaranteed. Except that I run Mandrake Venom for this particular situation. Won a game with dumb little Nekkers because no Glutsyworp whole entire game.

    See the issue with having this discussion with you Ego is that you like to pick up apart a small amount of what I said. I mentioned so far through my observations that I only really 2 ways of winning. It's often boosting or something alongside the Witchers. My argument is that I don't see that many options to win, considering my Round 3 with my Cancer of a Eredin deck is just that, boosting with a 16 and 12 immune card that ends up being an unbreakable damn wall for many decks. It's such a gross deck.

     

     

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Egoistik >>

    I don't want to defend HC by any means. I think CDPR deserved a huge drop in core beta player base. They alienated a lot of players by providing a new game with a new strategy requirement to win instead of improving the old one.

    However it's not less not more strategic. I don't know how you can really argue about this point. You can say it's less fun, you can say it's clunky, ugly or has less tention because the importance of tempo was removed (which will come back with next update anyway), but if you really say it's less strategic I don't really see a point to discuss since it's obvious to anyone that it's more stratigic then ever given by the fact, that there are more strategies to win and that we have more possibility space.

    In beta it was all about tempo and resilient engines. No smart person played engines beside resilient ones, since they were removed or out-tempoed, giving engine players a disadvantage. In new gwent you can build engines, but because you have less consistency, you have to puzzle your way into a strong combo instead of executing the same patterns like in beta. Plus more engines means more space for Controll.
    Controll cards were called "tech cards" for a reason. Controll was not really viable and tech cards were more about looking for options for a lucky punch like a big mardroeme etc. Right now finding ways to destroy and lock key cards is very much viable. E.g. you can throw in a lock and you will find a target. You will find multiple ones, so choosing the right one is a matter of good controll execution - which an engine player will have to consider, so there is more room for different strategies like playing a worse engine first for example.

    I still kind of miss tempo and tutors (normal and reversed ones) and I feel like it's way no slow for my personal taste, but calling it less strategic is just wrong.

     See and I just don't see that many ways of winning to be honest. In my time understanding HC, the way R3 has been won majorly is done in two ways, more monsters;

    -Do you know how many times someone just plays the Witcher cards on R3 and summons all 3 of them plus Roach for win?

    -Or boosting. And I know this strategy because I use this strategy as well.

    For example, my Caveat deck is all about setting up in R1 and 2, the best hand possible for R3, but the way I win in R3 is by boosting because my opponent is boosting. Cahir and because they have wasted all their removals on cannon fodder, it's just a boosting Round. It's the same thing with my Wild Hunt Deck. Round 3 will often be seized by boosting your monster by the higher power and round win. I rarely see any other strategies then the rare, removal round 3.

    Where they just kill all your monsters and give you no option to do anything. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Egoistik >>

    One might argue that if you start to play a round by activating order abilities - you have to play the round. Nothing ilogical over there. You might design the game differently, so that you could activate abilities and pass, but this would require different balancing. Current balancing is based around the game as it is.

    You still can get CA. If you go first, your opponent has to misplay (that's why you get +5 buff), but if you go second it's very much possible. You have to win on even and push. That's it.

     Again, old Gwent was about sometimes being able to back off. But when I have 8 in my hand and no way to control my discards, then it becomes punishing. I also don't think this game has much strategy, all you have now is boost, damage, or orders. But nothing like old Gwent with Skell Discard versus Skell Discard that is a shell of its former self. All Old Gwent needed was some tweaks to archetypes and Revenant Northern Realms is still bad, he needs a shield or immune or a higher power. He still dies by Alzurs, by any damage move. So they never fixed the issues with the old types And added on a slew of other problems. Dragons are still not viable, especially since Phoenix is no longer a dragon which was great for my Monster Dragon deck. Deckbuilding shouldn't be conflated with Viability of Archetypes and Balanced Card Mechanics.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Egoistik >>

    Well lone, new gwent is exactly for players like you. Now it's not about tempo but more about maxing out combos by slow set ups.
    You just need to understand how much you can push and when pushing becomes punishing. You can go down to 5 cards, lose and not lose any CA in R1 or down to 4 and you'll start with full hand in R3. Knowing that, it changes the whole interaction, so it way more slow paced and whoever is able to play better combos or to interupt combos wins.

    However: They will change that part again, so 3, 2 and 1 draws are coming back as well as your disired option to discard if you draw over 10 cards. So good old tempo will be more important in future and I hope this will make the game more fun. I kind of miss the tension of beta-tempo strategies.

    But about deckbuilding: it's one of the best parts about HC. Old Bronze, Silver and Gold system was inbalanced af. Everybody played the same gold cards like DJ, Seltkirk and Shani who were core in any NR deck, so you had just one flexible slot - which was Keira, Roche or Triss: TK in most cases. So the choises for competitive play was limited by the fact that some cards were OP.
    I've started playing Gwent again a few days ago and was able to create two competitive NR decks in HC, but this time they are completly different. They don't use the same bronzes and they use completly different gold cards, so it's more about combos and less about playing the strongest cards of a given pool. This is what makes the new deckbuilding great. Some cards are better then others, so they are balanced out by higher provision cost and provision costs can be tweaked easyly if some card turns out to be OP for a given cost -> see artifacts.

    Visuals are ugly though.

     I disagree there are times when I want to dry pass without making a move, I also hate the fact you can't activate an ability and are forced to to play another card. For example. Had the guy who swaps a power with another unit on the field, and that gave me enough after they passed to take the round. But the game insist insist I make another move with another card. It throws away hand advantage out the window. In Magic you could activate an ability and end a turn. I hate the fact you only have X number of draws for the Whole Game. Are you fucking me? Why punish players in that way? 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Dweight888 >>

    I tried as well. I haave 250k scrabs, I can make whatever I want in the future, play whichever deck I want. I can even craft it golden with that amount but I just dont want to play, not fun anymore, as you said. I enjoyed the shit out of pre-homecoming gwent, I was top 100 numerous times, I really was good at the game. It's a shame :-(

     And now drypass is punishing. I play Anti Meta decks. So I have always been good at Gwent pre-homecoming myself. I got near close to high rank, my highest being 18. I wasn't pro. But I use to play slow, setup games, that means hand advantage, that means making opponents make their own mistakes and wiping them out R2 and R3. With this game draw system, I can't control the state of my hands. I only get 4 redraws for the whole game. My whole setup is to make sure I have key cards when I need them. Oh and it doesn't give you the option to discard a card. At least Yugioh and other games if you go over hand limit you discard the card yourself. No Gwent HC, I don't want to discard that gold card. How about when it draws and you have say 8 in your hand and you draw 3 the game gives you the choice to discard which card and keep the ones you want. Limiting player control when it comes to CCG is not fun. Nor do I consider it a fair chance.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated
    Quote from Dweight888 >>

    What CDPR basically did with this game was to change cards so that the game felt different, they did it multiple times. So instead of printing new cards to make the meta fresh, they change them which is super stupid. Gwent is dead.

     My current thoughts on HC as I am trying to see if it is at all viable is this;

    This new Gwent feels like throwing baby out with the bathwater and realizing they threw the baby out, and replacing it with a rubber baby doll instead. There was nothing wrong with the original Gwent, all they needed to do was limit some cards, tweak some archetypes. Instead they overhauled it all for no apparent reason what so ever and the games interesting qualities have lost it's zip. You went from making some interesting and cool combos in Gwent, some annoying and needed balance Nekkers. To this, you can only boost, damage, but there's none of that snappy combo movement. And the matches feel sluggish. I hate how the leader cards just stand around the whole match, making obnoxious noises and having no personality. In fact they have made Leader cards so boring that the flat still cards they use to be represented as have more personality than these moving around, "ha ha" "hey hey" looking at you Flav. The deck building is needlessly complicated, there was nothing wrong with the old system and what makes the new deckbuilding even worse is the freezing bug that hasn't been patched out. I dislike everything about HC, it has no personality, it's not Gwent, it feels something alien to it. And I am trying really hard, getting back into Gwent to understand HC, and while I'm use to it. It isn't fun.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Deck Building is Needlessly Complicated

    I decided I'd try out Homecoming since I hadn't tried. What was wrong with the deck building before with bronze, silver, and gold? These numbers make deck building needlessly complicated. And instead of the unskippable tutorial teaching you basics like the new rules of deck building, it teaches me how to play the game. All that changed was what cards do. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here
    Quote from Ravzar >>

     Still pretty tough to gg haha.

     huh?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here
    Quote from Bighomer >>

    I will never GG a Whispering Hillock deck. The combination of Sabbath strenghten and Olgierd consume abuse is purely disgusting.

     Not every Hillock is an Imlerith. I run a Dragon Octovist.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Tempo Calviet
    Quote from Tjold >>

    Can you post this SK discard deck? I didn't play gwent for some time and now I would love to play my favourite type of deck

     SK Discard not viable in higher play. I tried. A lot of grave hate that comes with it. Or your strategy can be seen a mile away and people will do anything to make you bleed so you can't get your combinations off. Beyond how nerf'd it is. It just not a viable SK deck. I run King Bran Weather with the guys who gain points whenever an enemy is injured. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here
    Quote from Ravzar >>

    Your opponent also doesn't know for sure if you have an answer (at least in the situation of having coral or not, I accept vs a deck like spellatael they pretty much have to have an answer they can tutor almost 100 percent of the time in round 1) and so they might commit more to a round than they otherwise would and this allows you to in effect bleed them if that's something desirable. Bleeding can occur round 1 too. Indeed, vs a deck like axemen it is best to have them expend as many cards as possible to take round 1.

     My point being once they muzzled my brigade who gains points for every spy I put was stolen by them by a Muzzle. I lost the moment they took my brigade for R3 because he's my major point spammer + False Ciri. Yes, I know False Ciri isn't the greatest card in the world, but this deck has had me rank 15 before. Because of the way it is designed, but its difficult because its not a point spam boost deck. It's a reactive disruption deck.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here
    Quote from Egoistik >>

     I do that. Styling is one reason, but it's not just that. An Engine like False Ciri can be stopped in many ways, one of which is speed. Number one strategy against people relying on engines is banging out a lot of points and passing, so naturally I wouldn't use a hard counter like coral. It's a bad trade. I try to avoid bad trades.

     it was Round 3. And they stole my brigade. I lost the moment they took Brigade who gets really boosty + false ciri. It was also Skellige. With the Greatswords. So there was really nothing I could do. It harkens to, no hard removals, and that not every play is an actual lost and goes back to Neutral or a 0 stance because you can resurrect. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here
    Quote from Sultan_Mehmet >>

    If the creators would be as masterful in getting rid of the bugs or bringing new interesting and useful features as they are in bringing cards and environment possibilities with situations that cause you a brain stroke rather than fun... I understand they cannot be taken responsible for peoples' behavior, but if you give the people the possibilities, you cannot wonder they (mis)use them. I meet such psychopaths too... Waiting for the proper moment and proper effect, and since victory would not be enough for them, they add a "not bravery, but brains..." or "observe a master....". I'm usually silent during the game. No proper counter-taunts like "go f**k yourself you s**t" have been added for situations like this, unfortunately. But I know the wind does not blow in one direction only, and I remember each and every one of them. And many times already I was able to return the favors - be it roping, a proper moment taunt & move in the proper moment, or something like that. Karma is a bitch... :-)

     I love the guy who's last card is  a Geralt Igni. And I know he has one. My monster been 35 this whole entire time, Consume can get kind of crazy. So just Igni the card. He did so. But he lost by 1 point because I kept ahold of one of my other consume cards, my forktail to make up for the lost. Just play the darn cards. I don't have a response, it isn't like MTG, where I can stop a scorch or geralt or counter or anything or have a recovery of some sort. It's not as easy as MTG or Yugioh to recover that kind of lost. Fuck just play the damn card and stop fucking around

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here

    You know what I hate, people who save the answer for the last minute. If you have an answer just play it. I know you have an answer to false ciri so just play it. Get sick and tired of people withholding that. If you had Coral, Coral Ciri in the beginning, not as the last card. Hate people styling. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.