While I'm not fond of the removal of gold immunity, it's not the biggest problem in itself. Sure, I'd rather they were immune, it had a nice bit of uniqueness and flavour to it. It let you invest your meteorite powder safely if you wanted to, and made it feel justifiable that they cost four times more than silver cards. Now, not so much. With the apparent average value of bronze cards having skyrocketed, and golds being swept off the board like no man's business, the cost just seems excessive. Sure, gold cards can still be powerful, but they feel like they've lost their impact in a big way.
Now to come to the core of the problem, while some golds have been changed to compensate for the change, others haven't, and most certainly not enough. Let's take Triss for example. Sure, she's a starter card, but still gold, and still takes up a gold slot. Yet there's an argument to be made that she's actually worse than the silver card Myrgtebrakke. Triss has the advantage of 1 power, while Myrgtebrakke is far more versatile with her potential to split damage. This just doesn't make sense to me. Another shining example is Tibor Eggebracht, who's only change was that he goes back to his original power once he enters the graveyard. As an immune gold, he was awesome and unique. Now the only reasonable thing to do is update his art with a giant bullseye on his bald head. Another example is Geralt, who was never the strongest card to begin with, but is now consistently less valuable than many bronze cards. I just really struggle to see the logic here, hopefully these issues will be addressed soon.