NomanPeopled;n10470002 said:@ nunqmo:
then 50% of skill is in playing, is it not?
No its not. Its more like 30% of experience and 20% of luck.
NomanPeopled;n10470002 said:@ nunqmo:
then 50% of skill is in playing, is it not?
NomanPeopled;n10467192 said:@ GenLiu:
I'vve just made my first reveal deck without recourse to outside sources, and it has Attre. Perhaps it just looks good to players who have no clue about reveal? I mean, it's exactly the sort of card which every newbie would throw into their first reveal deck ...
StrykerxS77x;n10466902 said:Perhaps some but it is true that complaining about this accomplishes nothing. The OP wishes for something that is impossible. All you can do is ask CDPR to make more variety and balance better.
nunqmuo;n10468532 said:Yeah. As if people don't use netdecks in casual LUL If anything there is more netdecks so in casual than in ranked.
Jezaboom2;n10471402 said:You can do a lot more than that, you can demonstrate with your wallet, by refusing to purchase anymore kegs. If enough people were to start doing this, then CDPR would think twice in the future before engaging in money grubbing schemes
GenLiu;n10466932 said:Netdecking in Gwent and MTG doesn't have the same meaning.
From my personal experience, I've never met a MTG player who were playing a deck without exactly knowing why and without rethinking the global strategy and make their own adjustements.
For the most part, players who netdeck in Gwent simply copy/past something they saw on the internet without even trying to figure out if the deck works or if they need to change something.
Proof : Look at the number of people playing Henry Var Attre in Reveal when this card is easily the worst silver that have ever been printed for this archetype.
GenLiu;n10470512 said:Just to make things clear, I wasn't saying that everyone playing Var Attre is a netdecker and has no skill, far from it. We all get to test it at some point and yes, it's a pretty alluring card when you don't know much about reveal and try to make our own version of it. I fully respect you for making a deck on your own, that's definitely the best way of playing a ccg.
And that's what I meant with MTG players vs Gwent players. MTG players who still play the game are mostly people who're in love for ccg (after 2O years of existence, there is not much casual left) so pretty much all of us has some deck building experience and even for those who don't, nobody in this community would play a deck without having a close look at the deck first and at least figure out if the deck is viable or not.
I'm sure you'll go a long way in this game because, again, building your own decks will give you a lot of knowledge about said deck and the game in general.
It's very important and definitely what makes the difference between netdeckers and deck builders, the second part having a much larger learning curve because we analyse the game in it's core and understand how the engine works.
StrykerxS77x;n10472902 said:Do you play reveal? Henry is not a bad card. Not even close.
GenLiu;n10474662 said:I do play reveal (in fact I play pretty much every archetype of Gwent), it's the deck I have the higher win ratio with and frankly Henry is terrible (and believe me, I tested him....that was a torture, my win ratio got butchered but I did).
So, yes, on paper he's insane, 9 power silver that deal 2 damage to every revealed units in your opponent's hand and boosts all friendly units in yours...Pretty easy to get huge value out of him right?...
Except in practice this guy is massively situational, there is many situations (almost every games in fact) were something is gonna go wrong, like your opponent has too many special cards, or you just revealed spies (just for recall, 9O% of the community is playing Silver spies) or you don't have enough reveal effects to get enough value out of him or by the time you play him, your opponent played all the reveal cards he had in hand...I could keep going with this list for the entire night but you got the point.
And not only that but he's so easy to play around. He's such a low tempo play that you can play him and fall behind on points and your opponent can just mulligan the cards you hit with him (with spells or just at the end of a round).
One more thing, in order to get the full potential out of this card you have to play 3 Alchemists, which is a significant price to pay and he's akward with Venendal (either you lose value out of one or the other) and Daerlan (because they can't be revealed and in your hand at the same time). Also, the most reliable way to counter him, from your opponent's stand point, is to simply play the reveal match up, which is never a good thing (he would be better if at least he had a mechanic that forces your opponent to keep his revealed card in hand but this is obviously not the case).
NomanPeopled;n10474562 said:@liezldieldee: A lot of the non-netdecks aren't any tougher to play. And like I said, netdecking is not limited to powerful decks to beat.
StrykerxS77x;n10475192 said:Reveal has a lot of issues in general but once those get worked out I say that Henry will be used. Aside from the points he generates he also resets your fire scorpions which is nice.
GenLiu;n10475422 said:It's nice but not mind blowing.
Unless CDPR makes a mechanic that benefits from concealing cards, I don't see Henry working ever.
Just my opinion but I don't think reveal has that many issues. A well built reveal deck is pretty solid at any point of the game.
StrykerxS77x;n10475882 said:Reveal is probably the easiest archetype for me to beat currently in the game. They are inconsistent and predictable.