6 Months Without Gold Immunity: My Conclusion

[BornBoring]

6 Months Without Gold Immunity: My Conclusion

About 6 months ago CDPR removed gold immunity, one of the core concepts of gwent since the Witcher 3 days, from the game (For people, who started playing gwent later: Gold cards could only be affected by very few cards like dimeritium shackles). I think this should be enough time to evaluate if this change was helpful or not.

Positive:
CDPR aimed to make the game more interactive by removing gold immunity. There existed some tactics, which would focus on having a relatively short round 3 and then to play all golds in this round. This means you basically couldn't interact with your opponents board. Esspecially having damaging cards in your hand was very painful in this scenario, because they had no target (or you had to target your own units). I do think it really made the game a bit more interactive than it was before. Because gold units were stronger back then, drawing your golds was also more important than it is now. So the change probably decreased the influence of draw-RNG. Another problem of gold immunity was, that games were very binary at times. Do you have d-shackles to stop cards like Triss: Butterfly or will this card alone completely destroy you? There are now way more options to counter such cards (too many).

Negative:
The tactic of playing all your gold cards late wasn't very interactive, but it was a valid tactic to win and generally having unique tactics to win the game is a good thing. It enabled interesting card designs like old Schirru, which was a 10 strength unit, which allowed you to transform a card in your hand into scorch (optional, so you could bluff). Because scorch and big bodys don't synergize well, he had to be changed and is now basically scorch on a stick (not very interesting). Cards like Letho could also be used defensively do protect your own units (but taking the risk of d-shackles/d-bomb and then scorch). Generally gold cards with strong deploy ability are now the best gold cards and cards with ongoing effects struggle ever since. The general lack of ongoing effects is partly the result of removing gold immunity.

My opinion:
I think gold immunity added another tactical aspect to the game, enabled different strategies and allowed more interesting card designs and more cards with ongoing effects. Cery:Fearless is a good example of a very interesting card, which is completely unviable, because it's too easy to remove her. I do think though that there weren't enough options to deal with gold cards. Back during closed beta there some gold cards and Radovid, who could target golds, but they changed this for stupid reasons.
So if golds were immune again, what other changes would be necessary?:
It's all about finding the sweet spot between too much options to deal with golds and too few. I think next to d-shackles some golds should be able to target other golds and maybe some silvers. For example manticore venom could be changed to damage any unit (including golds) by 8. Silver locks would probably be too powerful if they can lock golds, but if they were able to demote them, they would add more interactivity.
Cards like Seltkirk could be changed to "Demote and duel an enemy". Because all gold cards are legendary anyway, you could then change cards like decoy or shani to affect only non legendary cards to avoid "demote-abuse".

Final words: In my opinion CDPR hurt the game more than once by just removing mechanics instead of tweaking them.


Your opinion (please read the text before):

 

[TheShift]

I didn't like the gold immunity announcement back in the day..and the first few weeks I was not a fan.

As time went on I found it to be one of the better changes for the game

like you said..it always came down to who could have the most gold in round 3...and they almost always won.
so luck of the draw played a big part in who won the game..not skill

 

[Bondonkadonk]

I think gold immunity was a crap fest. What I remember from what time was just feeling constantly annoyed by golds taking over the board without being able to do much about them. Remember when virtually everyone carried yen because her constant zapping was so difficult to deal with unless you just happened to be carry d-shac AND a removal? For me personally the game is a whole lot better now that golds can be interacted with just the same as anything else. The few things that I do think hurt are when a simple bronze lock can completely shut down some golds, and that some golds just haven't been changed to suit the lack of immunity; ciri, for instance, used to be quite popular, but is now virtually unplayable at her current str thanks to the fact she will almost always get removed or locked. That can easily be changed though, just with a str or armour tweak, same goes for quite a few of the other lesser used golds.

Even with me saying it hurts that they can be locked, I think so long as their design allows for them to get some value on initial play, then that's still valid. Triss butterfly, for instance, can be locked to prevent huge value over time, but to make it feel good for the person playing her, even placing her down can give you a nice 15-20str play before the opponent can lock/remove her. That's a good state for a gold, I think, one that gives you instant value but can also be interacted with.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Having golds be near invincible like that was obviously a design nightmare. Every two seconds there was a new deck that was broken because of golds. I'm glad it's the way it is now.

 

[TheEpicWhale]

It was good that it was removed, but there are still cards that need to be tweaked because of it.

 

[4RM3D]

I've voted for the neutral option. There was a time when Gold cards could only be removed with other Gold cards or disabled with D-shackles. That was more balanced than removing all Gold immunity. However, this did limit the design of Gold cards because they would quickly become too powerful. Removing immunity completely is a step too far because Gold engine cards are almost never being played now. A middle-road would be to give some Gold units protection, either using the existing Shield mechanic (like with Villenmethingy) or by giving them a 50% resistance to damage (or even a self healing ability similar to Craiteswords).

 

[OG.laloquaint]

I'm glad the game moved away from that. I like being able to interact with my opponent's board. That being said, I still would like to see some reworks for certain gold cards like Tibor, for example. That's a whole other problem though.

 

[Lyserus]

I was almost given up on the game before gold immunity is removed. It was like witcher 3 gwent, probably fun doing collective stuff against AIs in a single player game, but gets so boring in pvp for a short time since the way you play is pretty standard every time.

Gold immunity removal was one of the best decision CDPR have made for gwent

 

[Draconifors]

I remember being highly skeptical regarding the Gold immunity removal when it was first announced, but it quickly proved to be an excellent change.

I absolutely hated those games where victory came down to who had the most Golds and could preserve them for R3. Also some Golds, such as YenCon were incredibly frustrating to deal with when they had immunity.

This is probably a controversial thing to say, but I thought old Radovid, Iorveth and the other Golds capable of damaging others of their kind were a step in the right direction when they were around.

Yes, many Golds with a continuous effect are pretty bad now due to easy removal and probably need a rework to be fully viable, but I still think it's better than having them be untouchable.


TL;DR: IMO Gold (or rather, Hero) immunity works in minigame Gwent, but the standalone is way, way better off without it.

 

[Gemueseknolle]

You are right, that it added some tactical component, but actually it would be easy to bring it back, without changing existing gold cards.

Suggestion:
They could bring immunity feature / remove immunity as a feature that can be placed / removed on ANY card (for a price of course) - so not just for gold cards.
For example werewolves have it right now, but it is also no removeable. => They could introduce cards (or add to existing cards) the possibility to add / remove immunity on other cards.

 

[BornBoring]

Keep in mind, gold immunity doesn't mean there shouldn't be cards, which can interact with them. As I said there should be a few options to interact with them, but not so many that golds without strong deploy effects become too bad. Back then only d-shackles could affect them, there were definitely too few options. Remember hyper thin ST with gold spam+scorch in the final round? You couldn't do much against it, but imagine silver locks would have been able to demote golds back then. You could have make the scorch useless in some scenarios that way. I think there would have been a way to combine the positive aspects of both worlds and get something better than just removing gold immunity altogether.

 

[Rawls]

I think removing it was a net loss personally. I get why they did it for more interactivity. But I think gold cards should at least be resistant to forms of damage.

 

[Khreygond]

I'd say it was a net gain in general. Also, this would completely mess up your ability to lock an ambush. Like, opponent plays ambush. it could be a bronze, silver or gold Ambush card (like old Schirru. The 'old' Schirru you are talking about was definitely more interesting than this one, but the previous incarnation was an ambush card that scorched your opponent's highest unit when he played the next special card. And he was gold and impossible to interact with). How do I know what color it is? If I try to lock it with my silver lock, will it work? or will it not work if it is gold? will I have wasted my lock that way? This can be the problem with Morenn: Forest's Child.

As you can see, it can be a design nightmare, having gold immunity. Most golds did not profit from immunity. Those that did (Villentretenmerth, Yennefer: Conjurer, Cahir) were so broken, that especially the first and second were in half of the decks out there (the second being in virtually EVERY deck. I am not even exaggerating. It's why the Northern Realms were known as Radovid's Realms. Because he could damage ANY unit by 8 so he could deal with the bothersome Yennefer: Conjurer)

It's like, some gold cards are ok to be immune because their whole point is being immune (Ciri, Villentretenmerth, Tibor Eggebracht). Others, while their point is being immune, they become broken if they are (Yennefer: Conjurer). And finally others are just good, meh, or bad regardless of immunity (everything else). But in the very end, I'll take this Gwent, with all its flaws, over a Gwent with gold immunity.

There needs to be a new tag which means "this unit cannot be damaged". So that certain units are not target-able by Alzur's Thunder, but can still be locked. That will promote locks into the game as well. I'd like it if you could lock golds but not remove them.

 

[TheShift]

I think 4RM3D has the right idea
and I could get behind some Gold cards having either more protection or a regeneration effect

 

[BornBoring]

were so broken, that especially the first and second were in half of the decks out there (the second being in virtually EVERY deck. I am not even exaggerating. It's why the Northern Realms were known as Radovid's Realms. Because he could damage ANY unit by 8 so he could deal with the bothersome Yennefer: Conjurer)

That's not really correct. The end of closed beta was dominated by monster consume and ST. Both didn't use yencon. Yencon got nerfed to 4 strength I think and although they changed radovid and the few golds, which could target golds, yencons playrate dropped significantly.

Also, this would completely mess up your ability to lock an ambush. Like, opponent plays ambush. it could be a bronze, silver or gold Ambush card

Honestly, I don't think it would be a problem if there weren't any gold ambushes. I mean, moreen:forest child should be a 5 point silver imo.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

I liked gold immunity, a lot of cards died with it. Had they reworked them all them maybe it would be better. Cards like Triss butt are dead. With so much removal in the game it would be fun to at least keep something on the board. I miss the good ole days..

 

[Khreygond]

That's not really correct. The end of closed beta was dominated by monster consume and ST. Both didn't use yencon. Yencon got nerfed to 4 strength I think and although they changed radovid and the few golds, which could target golds, yencons playrate dropped significantly.

Partly right. Yenn: Con did see less use during the end of the Closed Beta. But those decks dominated the meta during the middle of Closed beta (started October 2016) when she was still very dominant. The end was dominated by 2 decks more or less: Monsters Weather and Scoia Scorch Spam with a bit of Skellige discard and Monsters consume. Yenn: Con could be included in Monsters weather and consume, I had seen it there, and it was a solid option which would devastate you if you weren't playing D-Shackles or Radovid/Iorveth.

Honestly, I don't think it would be a problem if there weren't any gold ambushes. I mean, moreen:forest child should be a 5 point silver imo.

See that right there is where our opinions differ. I'd prefer more powerful and lock-able ambushes, even Gold, than having all ambushes be silver just so you can lock them and have the golds be immune.

 

[BornBoring]

But those decks dominated the meta during the middle of Closed beta (started October 2016) when she was still very dominant. The end was dominated by 2 decks more or less: Monsters Weather and Scoia Scorch Spam with a bit of Skellige discard and Monsters consume. Yenn: Con could be included in Monsters weather and consume, I had seen it there, and it was a solid option which would devastate you if you weren't playing D-Shackles or Radovid/Iorveth.

Nope, the end was dominated by consume not weather. If you don't believe me watch gwent challenger 1. I remember the radovid meta and yencon being god-tier, but three things: She was overstated for such a powerful effect (5(? I think they nerfed her strength more than one time, but not sure now)+2NR promote bonus, so Iorveth for example couldn't kill her), NR could built a nearly perfect deck around it and as stated there were too few counters, now there are too many(Increasing her base strength isn't that great of an idea, because she is unsynergistic with scorch now. I made a casual scorch ST deck, but removed her from the deck, because she would block my scorch too often, while generating no good value most of the time.)

Anyway: Radovid meta > ST "I play 5 bronze units during one turn thanks to BMC and Mercs" meta
(Although balancing was poor most of closed beta I love to remember those times , first 2-3 weeks after every patch were awesome )

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

Like most things in Gwent, it took something from one extreme to the other. Using strong, uninteractive golds as finishers was bad but making a lot of gold cards useless isn't better.

A lot of golds need to be buffed to keep up with the immunity update. Ciri comes to mind first.

 

[idomyownstunts]

I don't miss the immunity really. But why they are releasing more and more new cards when lots of golds weren't reworked in unison with the change is disappointing.