Jump to content
Ammit

Gwent: The Witcher Card Game

Recommended Posts

Ammit    5159

Anyone else get into the closed beta yet? I got in yesterday and it's so far way better than every other digital card game I've played. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104

I played it intensively for a while but at some point I decided I didn't like it anymore, and the direction it went into. It really becomes auto-pilot at some point, and nearly every card is RPS / situational one way or another. 

@PSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+PSK    4309

been playing for maybe 2 months now I think. meta is kind of cancerous atm with swim-dwarves and consume-monsters running around but yeah its a very enjoyable game and greatly benefits good players imo. 

 

it's hard to nail down exactly what state the game is in or where its trying to go. they released a huge patch maybe 2 weeks ago that dramatically decreased the popularity of card advantage generators so the coin flip feels a bit more important than it should. With a few minor changes I think it could be a real competitor for a top spot in competitive digital card games (If Epic doesn't steal the spotlight) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dank Memeston    1716

I played this for a few weeks around October at which point rafovid decks were supposedly the best but I never got enough cards to be very competitive. I enjoyed the game to a strong degree but it seemed it would take too long to make interesting decks so I quit. (Also no one I knew was playing it so probably wasnt worth investing time in.) Definitely a very good game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10167

itt Ammit tries another card game

 

 

NO SURPRISE

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5159
1 hour ago, Urthor said:

itt Ammit tries another card game

 

 

NO SURPRISE

only after seeing lifecoach play it for like a week straight lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samwise    55

What's everyone's opinions on this game after the open beta changes?

 

It seems like its by far the least RNG and variance dependent CCVG and the developers have said they want it to be the most consistent and skill dependent card possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104

I mean unless they changed everything 100% the last half year or so

 

because last I played I found this game to be completely luck depended 

 

like it was 30% grinding for cards 70% luck tbh

 

and everytime I scrapped for good cards THEY WOULD NERF THE GOOD CARDS and you wouldn't get a refund either so you bought them for literally no reason


I don't think this game can possibly ever be skillful unless if they like changed the actual resource system and the way cards are designed / worked

 

like spy's decoy etc had some cool interactions but in general, it was throw down cards until one wins

 

and every strategy I had lost to one card but won vs another, to the point where literally everything was RPS or like depending on going first or second, etc. maybe I just got extremely unlucky over a very large sample size because I remember losing vs bad decks/strategies/players like A LOT 

 

can you name me the main changes they made / if you think the game is skillful now and if so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samwise    55

Most people consider it to be an entirely new game based on the amount of stuff they changed from closed to open beta. This is the closest I could find to a complete patch notes http://forums.cdprojektred.com/forum/en/gwent/general-discussions-aa/8547920-the-new-open-beta-patch-information-thread

 

They've mentioned plans to give refunds for nerfed cards eventually/once the game gets out of beta. They are also a lot more generous in regards to packs, pack currency, crafting currency, and premium upgrade currency when compared to Hearthstone in terms of f2p. It is currently possible to ladder very efficiently with at least one of the starter decks they give you for free, wild hunt monsters.

 

I don't see the luck element in the game beyond drawing cards, which is absolutely miniscule compared to competitors like Hearthstone, ESL, or even ygo. You draw 13 cards out of a 25 card deck and mulligan 5 cards throughout a game on definite game mechanics alone, so you almost always get access to your strategy and games aren't decided by topdecks. The small amount of RNG card mechanics it has are done to take power away from cards and have next to no swing value, unlike adapt and discover mechanics from HS.

 

I think the resource system is one of the most skill enabling components of the game. Similar to why people enjoy ygo, you always have access to your strategy. There is no aggro or curve in Gwent, there is no losing before you can actually play your cards, the game will always have as many turns as you want/need it to have. If your opponent plays a high value card you can always play your counter. The game currently reminds me of older ygo where there is a lot of healthy interaction (interrupting combos, dynamic value destruction)  between players almost every turn.

 

A really popular sentiment about the game right now is you can pretty much always go back and point out misplays that would have at least given you the opportunity to take the game down a decision path where it would have been possible for you to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104

Me ranting about how Gwent was before this update:



The luck element came down to both players opening a hand, every action being auto (I play a unit, you play a unit), and the only "skillful" decision is basically when to pass. Going second (iirc) was overpowered because you have more options by playing cards after your opponent does. Also a lot of cards were RPS, but this is something that won't show immediately, but when you were playing at a relatively high rank every choice you made would be countered by another deck to the point where there was no solution. For example playing weather based decks was weak vs decks that were unaffected by whether monsters, there was also a strong strategy that involved around having 1 or more monsters, powering them up, and giving them the ability to stay multiple turns, but this was a insta-loss vs weather based, or destruction based decks. But the RPS format was complete because the regular decks would then lose to the power up decks. There was also the fact that some cards (I think weather + destruction cards), literally only did shit going second. And stuff like Villentretemerth was extremely luckbased, a card like Geralt: Aard (that would -1 an entire row) would be good vs some decks and bad vs others, a card like Gerald (the one that destroyed a monster with 15+ ATK) would only be good if your opp played such a match. Every game felt like a combination of actual RPS + in-game RPS between decks (like deck A beating deck B, B beating C and C beating A). Everytime I lost it was because i either:

 

- went first

- matched up vs a bad match-up (the RPS thing)

- drew bad (as in, I draw less golds than my opp, that kind of thing)

- it's a stalemate where we both play card for card until someone wins because their last 2 drawn cards had more atk than my last 2 draw cards

- sometimes because I didn't have cards (this is a legitimate reason to lose though, but the game was extremely pay to win imo although I only payed for packs once) 

 

Not once did I feel like I lost due to a misplay, not once did I play a good opponent or did I play an opponent with a good or creative deck. They were literally all terrible, and would continuously make subtle misplays that probably don't matter for the outcome of the game 99,99% of the time, but they were misplays nonetheless. Really there's not much skill in you and me throwing our entire hand on the board, passing at an obvious moment, and then having 1 of the 2 players win because their last card in hand had higher attack. Now it could be the case that I'm actually bad and didn't see my mistakes. Or it could be the case that I was extremely unlucky. Or the game could actually be bad. And I think it's a combination of me being extremely unlucky + the game being actually bad. At least in any other game I play, if I lose, I know I fucked up somewhere. In this game I would seriously play perfectly with a good deck and lose vs worse players almost 50% of the time anyway, it's insane.




Basically the game would have to have been completely 180'd now if misplays actually exist. And based on your post I'm inclined to believe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NB96    813

My brother has been playing this a lot lately. He thinks weather effects are too strong. Some card called Ragnarok is auto-win apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samwise    55
12 minutes ago, NB96 said:

My brother has been playing this a lot lately. He thinks weather effects are too strong. Some card called Ragnarok is auto-win apparently.

 

Weather is really good but has multiple hard counters and can be played around pretty easily.

 

Rag is one of the only weathers that can't be played around but still has hard counters, can only be used once in a best of 3, and is really low value round 3. CDPR are pretty adamant about it still being in beta so balance changes will be happening often and community feedback will be acknowledged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5159

game's still great, i find it kind of absurd to think you played perfectly as the best decks pre-open beta were all decks you needed to know inside and out to actually do well with. lifecoach won the first and only big tournament so far before open beta and that was after practicing 100 hours a week up to that point, and it's fairly obvious to see the amount of time you put into the game paying dividends. also idk why you were playing weather monsters that deck was pretty awful before they changed the whole archetype going into open beta. also igni is a good card in certain metagames and bad in others, though realistically it was great pre-open because consume monsters was the best deck or tied. also the game is super generous for f2p players, i had 2 tier 1 decks built a month in and only then spent money on the game to build a third. it's only gotten better in open beta too. also how the hell is borkh luck based there was one deck that used it and it could be played around fairly easily.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5159
On 6/1/2017 at 4:36 AM, Samwise said:

 

Weather is really good but has multiple hard counters and can be played around pretty easily.

 

Rag is one of the only weathers that can't be played around but still has hard counters, can only be used once in a best of 3, and is really low value round 3. CDPR are pretty adamant about it still being in beta so balance changes will be happening often and community feedback will be acknowledged. 

yeah rag can be really good but they're nerfing that and drought next patch, and also changing a bunch of other stuff already including trying to make nr better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+PSK    4309
17 hours ago, Ammit said:

game's still great, i find it kind of absurd to think you played perfectly as the best decks pre-open beta were all decks you needed to know inside and out to actually do well with. lifecoach won the first and only big tournament so far before open beta and that was after practicing 100 hours a week up to that point, and it's fairly obvious to see the amount of time you put into the game paying dividends. also idk why you were playing weather monsters that deck was pretty awful before they changed the whole archetype going into open beta. also igni is a good card in certain metagames and bad in others, though realistically it was great pre-open because consume monsters was the best deck or tied. also the game is super generous for f2p players, i had 2 tier 1 decks built a month in and only then spent money on the game to build a third. it's only gotten better in open beta too. also how the hell is borkh luck based there was one deck that used it and it could be played around fairly easily.

iirc mark played when scoiatael dash was a thing (back when mercenary was a 3 strength agile that pulled spell from deck). I agree that I don't think the game was luck based then but weather had far more impact especially in conjunction with card advantage so I can see where he's coming from the RPS argument in so much as scoia naturally generated card advantage and the victor was often decided by whoever had the last play.

 

the game is far more about incremental advantage now for those wondering. tempo is generated at the start of rounds via leaders as opposed to end of round swings which is nice. once they provide an acceptable means to handle gold power, i think the game will be in a good place. at the moment tho, the gold control spell decks are miserable to play against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104

More rant about gwent beta

 

putting it in spoiler cause it's not relevant anymore, but wanted to respond to above



ok so I never played the weather deck, I was just listing decks I faced or could possibly make and came to the conclusion it's all about draws, RPS decks, and going first or second. when I say I didn't play perfectly - I'm literally referring to playing around a 2-off instead of 3-off which may matter once every 50 games or so. my winrate was probably more positive than I gave credit for but I was probably on a downswing so I'm biased. the game isn't that difficult and if you think I misplayed every duel you're wrong. you literally open 10 cards and you know your opponents deck, predict what cards they can have, go through all possible ways the duel can go and then play the cards in the according order. you make it out like games are extremely difficult when in fact they aren't, I'm confident my strategy deck and technical play were better than any opponent I faced (maybe there were a few that I didn't really see completely, but never did I face a strategy and think "wow I got outplayed / why didn't I think of that myself). I did put quite some time in back then so I think I knew my decks. Only deck I couldn't switch to was Northen Realms "good card.deck" which I think was good as it didn't have any weak spots. I'm not sure if you mastered the game yourself or that you're just going off own experience that you misplayed / thought the game was difficult, but the game is pretty simple.

 

that said, if they changed it all now that's all good - I may give it a shot again, was just stating problems the game had back in beta when I played it a lot. you have to realize I was REALLY into gwent, played a lot both IRL and online, probably got a relative high ranking in a relative short time frame, so at some point you're going to hit the "wall" and you're not able to outplay / outdeckbuild your opponent for more than 60-70% winrate anymore (which combined with my downswing, and the fact I had to scratch for cards so I couldn't switch to other decks such as Northem Realms which I wanted to try, stopped my motivation to play the game). Like my opponents would literally misplay every game, but the misplay wouldn't matter for the outcome of the game in like 99% of cases cause it was so small

when I'm talking about the RPS I'm talking about this:

Assuming everyone plays regular decks, having monsters that stick to the field between rounds & powering them up becomes the obviously superior strategy because you literally tripple your worth of every card (both northen realms could do this with the Wolf card, and then copying it with your leader ability, or socia'tael could do this with the dwarfs and then you just power them up).

 

With this strategy, I would X-0 every opponent with a regular strategy

 

However, this strategy lost to weather / destruction (like "-3 entire row" and "destroy opp's strongest monster" mainly)

Hell I would play around all that, I would literally play the dwarfs that stick, and the 3 atk guy that gets +3 every time you cast a spell, and then I would play my cards in such a sequence that all of them have different ATK levels (so I don't lose them all to Geralt/ Villentreten / the spell that kills all highes tattack monsters) but even then it doesnt matter if your opp opens 3 destruction cards, or plays a weather card, etc. keep in mind I was still playing 3x clear weather (because it could spawn 1 monsters as well) and a shitload of ways to search it from deck, but the weather cards already would've done their damage so it wouldn't matter anyway. really the entire weather mechanic was flawed, kind of like "you can't win with it, but you can lose against it" (and with that I mean it's suicide bomber, can have 50% winrate but not 80%+) 

 

but I couldn't play weather / destruction myself either because they all had different flaws

 

also weather decks weren't as terrible as you make them out to be, there were gold/silvers that made 2/3 rows freeze which outright auto-wins vs some match-ups and if you played Geralt: Aard, you could kill an entire row because of this. and you had fog which specialed the LV1 guys (that you could mulligan when draw in your opening hand), and there was the 6 fog guy that got +1 every round (so you'd play them in such a way, that they never have the same ATK so they can't get killed by 1 card), etc. but even then the deck was weak vs other unaffected decks and stuff like that

 

so both strategies had flaws  but if you didn't play either, you'd get fucked by the first strategy for sure. so you could play destruction / unaffected cards.deck but now you'd lose to other decks because some decks literally didnt even play creatures that could be destroyed at all, and now you have 4-5 dead cards in your hand, etc


I mean you're not going to convince me that there's skill behind having the strongest monster and getting it killed by Geralt (that kills a 15 ATK+ monster), but if you play Geralt yourself your opp won't have a 15 ATK+ monster (solution: not playing strong monsters? ok now you lose vs people who do, etc.). Or that there's skill to opening Villentretenmerth + 2 golds vs opponent who doesnt open golds, but if you play VIllen yourself, you could easily open it without golds/ways to abuse it, or, your opp has golds as well, and yes the correct play is to hold it till late game and lock your opp out of the game with it but your hand and the game won't always allow for it, and if you're 6+ turns into round 1, odds are you're not going to resolve it anymore (if you do round 1, opp passes. if you do round 2 theyll pass. if you do round 3, both players have probably under 2 cards so maybe theyll play their golds and pass or something). and that was the case with a lot of cards

 

so if you want to believe I suck I'll accept it, cause what I'm saying is literally what noobs without self reflection would say as well, but I'm confident I would beat almost anyone over a 100-game sample size including you or the youtubers you mentioned, but that's not what I'm here to debate about
 

really this is RPS, maybe northen realms was the solution, but the way the game was set-up was you had to go for 1 fraction, buy the cards, scratch for them, and then you couldn't switch easily anymore cause there wasn't many overlap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104


for the record I think the game was most skilled with the IRL cards with the spies (that outright gave 2 draws when played0, decoys, etc. because you could X-0 everyone who didn't know to max on spies, decoys, medics, play 28-29 cards with northen realm/nilfgaard (the latter being the best by far, more medics and the leader medic) and outdrawn your entire deck. I would play scorch and maybe 1 biting frost to nuke their spies I gave them, and I would not play bonds to play around scorch, and I literally X-0'd all my friends I played IRL until they copied my exact deck and plays and it became literally almost 50/50. but that format was good and skillful, and assuming it switches every now and then, format such as that are really good

prior to nilfgaard being released IRL, there was a fun thing you could do by playing socia'tael with 3 biting frost to win vs monster, and if you faced the mirror just redraw it, but tbh even vs monster you'd often lose even if you played biting frost so the format wasn't that good before northen realm/nilfgaard got released. monster decks took a while to "master" but once you realized Crone sucked (6 ATK that gets 2 more 6 ATK's, but they lost to scorch/villentreten) and the best strategy was to play a few 5 or 6 atk monsters to "protect" your row from villen/scorch, and then play the vampires/all the 4 ATK musters, and playing a small deck and 1 commanders horn, etc, the format became 50/50 anyway. but yea there was some "skill" in baiting villentreten/playing around scorch/when to pass / the fact that you shouldn't max out on muster but only play the vampire and the anarach or something, before people figured all that out

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104
18 hours ago, Ammit said:

ifecoach won the first and only big tournament so far before open beta and that was after practicing 100 hours a week up to that point, and it's fairly obvious to see the amount of time you put into the game paying dividends. 


ok this got me really intrigued so I looked it up


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3GBc60jcg
 

is this the tournament you were talking about?
 

 because these decks are terrible, also lifecoach punted at 5:45 and gets punished by geralt (although in this case it's his own fault for playing bad cards and playing bad) and a lot of these games are topdeck shows (or opp playing bad and bad cards, so easy wins) so I wouldn't say this tournament proves gwent was skillful, in fact it shows the opposite if you ask me

that said I do like the set-up with 4 decks per player etc, and yes such a format is obviously skillful, but that's like saying yugioh is skillful because you're playing until a person loses 4 matches out of 7 matches, yea I wonder how the tournament went if they played it one game at a time (which was the online ranked way, at the time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5159

there's an entire top 8 that's not included there and yeah lifecoach punted once in the finals. Also literally no card game has tournament play and ladder play that's the same. also that video's super edited, the match itself was 12x as long. the finals wasn't even the best match of the tournament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5159

also i've only heard super bad things about the game pre-nilfgaard patch, and the formats changed a significant amount since then as that's now 3 patches ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104

Ok I'll check out the top 8. I think the decks are bad but I'll give it a try. Tbh I've been out of the game too long to remember I just remember at the time that I ruled these cards out based on reasons / the meta at that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3104
3 hours ago, Ammit said:

also i've only heard super bad things about the game pre-nilfgaard patch, and the formats changed a significant amount since then as that's now 3 patches ago.

 

Yea I mainly played prior to that so I'm glad they took the game into a better direction, will give it a try once I have more time again because I used to love this game despite the flaws 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked this up a few weeks ago and have been playing quite a bit trying to grind up to GM. The game reminds me a lot of yugioh, and in particular old formats with the one play per turn system, and the emphasis on sequencing your plays.

 

The new player rewards are also insane, you get so many free packs during your first week. Easily enough to build any deck in the game you want to play before you get to the difficult parts of the ranked ladder. 

 

I didn't play until recently, but from what I've heard the game keeps improving with every patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gone    241

i was playing for a bit but it feels too solitaire and boring to me, and it felt like i was doing the same thing every game with my deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×