The game is certainly more dynamic and allows for more variety. No longer can you sit on a Gold at the end of a game and get an auto win because it can't be countered. It's much better now.
My impression so far is that Gwent took a turn for the worse. Maybe I am to negative but I really dislike the gold change and overall a lot of the new cards/redesigns of old cards. Game felt much better to me before patch. I think if they wanted golds to be more vulnerable they could simply have added a new keyword( to save text space) to some cards indicating that they could damage golds. I would think something like 20% of damage abilities being able to damage gold cards could have been fine. Golds feel less special and fun now( I know they wanted them to be less special and less needed for winning round 3). I liked when a Yennefer Conjurer or whatever was played against me in round 1 and I had to make a judgement on how far into the round I could play. Now I will just kill it or lock it. Feels boring.
Indeed, those strong power ones have become kind of useless. Totally, I do remove them because even some bronze ones seem to be more powerful now.
The issue is that most Golds haven't been redesigned to accomodate this change.
Them being the same is exactly the issue. They were touchable but required some setup. Tibor, for example, is next to useless, what with all the ST control decks that are starting to surface.
Snake_Foxhounder;n9404751 said:
Besides,Nilfgaard spies are so weak now. Resilience and gold cards changes make it pretty weak to win.
Are they? They got some decent cards now but I still have to try them.
As much as things changed, they stayed the same. Instead of Golds being a win condition in round 3, that now goes to removal cards and whoever goes last.
I still believe this patch is interesting, if nothing else. It'll take a while to get used to but things will need to change.
In a way I'm glad it turned out this way, because I've been meaning to play ST and all those juicy golds can now be scorched.
As much as things changed, they stayed the same. Instead of Golds being a win condition in round 3, that now goes to removal cards and whoever goes last.
I still believe this patch is interesting, if nothing else. It'll take a while to get used to but things will need to change.
In a way I'm glad it turned out this way, because I've been meaning to play ST and all those juicy golds can now be scorched.
Had a fun time with this game while it lasted. Changing this core feature in the game ultimately ruined 85% of the gold cards in general and the overall experience of the game. Gold cards were already vulnerable to shackle and dimiritium bomb and now this makes them even more meaningless. Birna Bran , Kamby , Cerys, ETC, to name a few are absolutely ruined. I don't plan on coming back unless this gets reverted. The game feels so distorted and even more linear then it was previously. Just ST and NG decks now where as last patch there was atleast more variety such as Monster,Skellige, and even Northern being viable. Everyone abusing weather/muligen ST decks which was to be expected with this poor change to the game.This was such a poor decision on the devs part and that's putting it lightly.
Littlekennenlegs;n9405331 said:
I am honestly in shock how bad this patch turned out. I made a huge effort before patch trying to do good in ranked. Was very happy with the game, had lots of fun. Sure some decks where strong but it felt like there was diversity and the gameplay was fun. I felt so optimistic for upcoming ranked season.
It's just flabbergasting how from one day to the next the game changed so drastically. I will keep playing. Going to try and like it. Reason is simply that I have an enormous collection and scrap amount that I worked hard for. If I wasn't invested because of that I would probably just stop playing until I hear changes are reverted or some other big fix is coming.
I just want to make my opinion known that I HATE HATE HATE (etc times infinity) this change to gold cards. I knew the meta would change with the patch. I'm fine with that. I'm happy that it's changing. But I can't overstate how much I hate that gold cards are damageable. I hope they revert this as soon as possible. If they are going to keep gold cards as damageable they need to make some drastic changes. For one thing they should introduce a new keyword "indestructable". Certain units like unseen elder shouldn't be subject to scorch/igni etc unless demoted. Every leader should deploy with 3-5 armor. Gold cards that only provide power bonus should be substantially increased in power (along with new indestructable keyword). What is the point of Gerald anymore? You can play bronze units that have easily met conditions that go past 13 power!
Problem with Golds is that we have Bronzes that accumulate more value and by 3 pieces per a Unit. Not to speak about the Silvers, which generally had more interesting effects before.
Weather became really oppressive again.
Golds need at least 4 Armor, at the very least, to have a decent value now. Certain immunities will also help. But this... this game I don't like.
Weather became really oppressive again.
Golds need at least 4 Armor, at the very least, to have a decent value now. Certain immunities will also help. But this... this game I don't like.
Guys, you have to understand that this is a game like all the others.
Damageable golds means in fact more weight for "random" factor in deciding the fate of a game and consequently less skills needed. That means more control for rigging mechanics. That means more games with known results even before starting. I have seen it in so many other games. The herd was screaming out this and that is too hard and requires too much skill. The devs. have to listen as they represents the vast majority of donors.
At least this is what devs are trying to say: that people were complaining of golds deciding the game so they made these more "interact-able". Tbh, I didn't notice posts on forums in this regards....so one more proof that the background for the change was another one.
I posted the same few times: Gwent is unfortunately going the same path as lots of other games out there: please the mass, indulge them donors with easy wins to make their egos happy and get more money from them.
They could have made something else to balance the games when a player got all 4 and the other none. They could have let all 4 in the hand in the beginning. They could have asked players to decide which 2 out of 4 golds him/her would start with in round 1. Or any other examples.
Now, golds are only cost a lot of scrap and have no more strategical value in the game....
Damageable golds means in fact more weight for "random" factor in deciding the fate of a game and consequently less skills needed. That means more control for rigging mechanics. That means more games with known results even before starting. I have seen it in so many other games. The herd was screaming out this and that is too hard and requires too much skill. The devs. have to listen as they represents the vast majority of donors.
At least this is what devs are trying to say: that people were complaining of golds deciding the game so they made these more "interact-able". Tbh, I didn't notice posts on forums in this regards....so one more proof that the background for the change was another one.
I posted the same few times: Gwent is unfortunately going the same path as lots of other games out there: please the mass, indulge them donors with easy wins to make their egos happy and get more money from them.
They could have made something else to balance the games when a player got all 4 and the other none. They could have let all 4 in the hand in the beginning. They could have asked players to decide which 2 out of 4 golds him/her would start with in round 1. Or any other examples.
Now, golds are only cost a lot of scrap and have no more strategical value in the game....
Last edited:
Omnipotent golds made the game too static and in some cases made the golds OP.
Opening them up to effects imo did nothing to the game play, though. Game doesn't flow any better. Previously golds were golds and untouchable, fine. Now they are touchable, which is also fine. This last change only made things more confusing by making golds equal to silvers in everything but name.
As far as the situation of gold cards is concerned, I think putting them at a point where they are vulnerable by a limited number of cards (gold/silver/bronze - doesn't matter) and not open to all effects would be the best spot. This was so for a while during the CB and worked fine. Golds were untouchable mostly, but there was no relaxing and sitting back, either. This was sort of like the balance of rock-paper-scissors, where every element has a weakness and a strength according to situation.
Opening them up to effects imo did nothing to the game play, though. Game doesn't flow any better. Previously golds were golds and untouchable, fine. Now they are touchable, which is also fine. This last change only made things more confusing by making golds equal to silvers in everything but name.
As far as the situation of gold cards is concerned, I think putting them at a point where they are vulnerable by a limited number of cards (gold/silver/bronze - doesn't matter) and not open to all effects would be the best spot. This was so for a while during the CB and worked fine. Golds were untouchable mostly, but there was no relaxing and sitting back, either. This was sort of like the balance of rock-paper-scissors, where every element has a weakness and a strength according to situation.