Wanna know the best part? If this turns out to be very bad, and I'm not saying it is...yet, we'll have to wait for months for a patch.
GenLiu;n9403111 said:The only thing that made me jump from my chair wasn't even Gold....And by the way, mark my words but Stammelford's tremors is going to be nerfed in the next patch. Is that just me or this card is ridiculous. I mean, it doesn't only triggers on your opponent's unit, you can literally convert your priestesses into golems...that's insane!
onlybalint;n9352561 said:I agree with what we had in closed beta. I vote for gold cards being able to damage other golds!
Ouderkirkj;n9403201 said: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.
Stormbuster;n9406901 said:Damageable golds means in fact more weight for "random" factor in deciding the fate of a game and consequently less skills needed.
Stormbuster;n9406901 said: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....
scorba;n9409021 said:it just spawns one golem regardless of how many were killed.
GenLiu;n9418111 said:True but Stammelford's tremmors already have a value.
el_Bosco;n9352291 said:Pretty much sums up the opinion i've stated in several posts over today. They go back and fourth over such dramatic elements of the game like they have no long term path for the game. And its not the 1st time this happens.
marina22;n9420411 said:but seeing my premium card being destroyed by bronze units kinda makes gold cards less valuable even premium cards
scorba;n9420211 said:it also damages your own units, so that value is around 0. sure, you can make it worth it in a spell or a SK wound deck, but I think it's still more like an "interesting" than broken card.