x

You have decided to merge your account with the GOG.com.

You can now start participating in the community discussions.

x

You chose to opt out from the merge process.
Please note that you will not be able to access your account until you opt in.

We strongly encourage you to merge your RED account with the GOG.com one.
If you want to do it later please try logging in again.

  • Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do we need immune golds back. Constructively. A zero negativity thread.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by arubino99 View Post
    I'm fine with golds being immune or not immune. Either way is good. The problem is that some golds were and are still balanced around having that immunity. Take that away, and a good chunk of golds simply can't be played.

    The other issue is that right now, golds are getting outclassed by bronzes.
    yep indeed ... maybe in the next patch, every single gold card in the game, could have their base strenght increased by +2 plus points ?
    bluffing and timing .... strong key points when playing Gwent !

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by HenryGrosmont View Post
      With all due respect, we're exchanging opinions based on our experience. So, saying that someone isn't correct is erroneous (the most important part) and not polite (don't care about that). Just saying...


      Actually, no. People were just dropping golds (esp in the 3rd) and watch the world burn. Card like YenCon and TrissButt were pain in the ass. Don't say that d-shackles were the answer. The truth is that the game evolved more and more as "the highest value wins". That's why cards like d-shackles were unpopular. Using certain golds with impunity, and golds in general, isn't good for the game. The majority of the gold cards are very powerful on Deploy. The very few who need a longer setup won't have a place in the game very soon. And I don't thin kit's bad: YenCon round 1, Renew YenCon round 2. Even if you used d-shackles in the first, you're screwed in the second. Plus, the aggressor can unshackle the now silver card. Bad design. Playing with out dealing with the consequences doesn't make for a deep thinking game.


      And yet none does that. For the reason I presented above - low value. And that's why Sages are good.


      My friend, I don't think you can't win. I just think that you haven't given more thought to the change or haven't looked from a different angle. I blame the lack of time...

      Gwent has a face. The immune, immensely strong golds shouldn't be that.
      ok, a few points here I'd like to clarify.

      1. what does "the highest value wins" means. Can you give me an example?
      2. Renew into Yenefer or TrissButt still vulnerable to shackles, isn't it? I don't get it why running 2 shackles is a problem to answer those. Lets say you answered Yen Con twise with shackles and unable to answer it 3rd time after decoy even though the gold is now silver (highly unlikely you won't have answer to it by this point). But lets assume you can't answer that. You have invested 2 bronzes, your opponent 2 golds and a silver. Just pass if you're round 2. If Round 3 play your golds denying YenCon targets as much as you can or place 1 high Str unit to give her 1 target. To answer TrissButt stagger opponents lowest unit to give her 1 target only. I think I covered all possible scenarios with these 2 cards. They can be answered tactically which I just flanking love.
      3. I never use golds for points. I prefer golds with tactical approach tenfold. By taking that away from me CDPR punished my style of gameplay.
      A true gwentleman doesn't take offence on a troll, cause troll is whom smashes his barrelsTM

      Absolute OP bonkersTM

      Comment


      • #33
        OP's post reads like some sort of zen proverb. Sounds deep, but in actuality has little rationale or meaning.

        Comment


        • #34
          I truly believe golds losing immunity is the correct direction, but it will take some more updates to smooth out the wrinkles. At the moment it feels rough with certain golds, along with all the other bugs and balancing issues. Give it time, and have faith in CDPR. I sure trust them.
          Last edited by Kinglionsfox; 05-09-17, 01:06. Reason: Always one misspelled word :(

          Comment


          • #35
            Keep gold cards as they are now. Making them immune in the first place was retarded. People who are for gold immunity are talking like removing the immunity screwed them but helped everybody else. As if the cards weren't the same for everybody. 'Oh no, they removed gold immunity and now my uncounterable third round finisher doesn't work anymore.'
            The game is far from perfect and some things are imbalanced but it's far better than it was before the patch. Way better. You have no idea how much better it is and how many deck types are viable besides the brainless ones that are at the top of the gwentdb deck list. Of course, if all you've done your whole life was netdeck you will never enjoy the early days of a patch and you will always yearn for the days before the patch when you actually knew what you were doing. That's why you miss the old golds. You don't know how to play the new ones.
            And I'm not saying that as in insult nor do I think it's wrong for people to netdeck. MMORPGs have cookie cutter talents and best in slot items, MOBAs have standard item builds. It's okay to netdeck. Soon you won't miss the old golds because you will have decks that are good and enjoyable. Right now you have only a few decks which are good and probably you don't find them enjoyable.

            Comment


            • #36
              In my mulligan crap deck, its sometimes better to mulligan for bronze instead for gold, that sucks, actually i think i could run this deck with just 3 golds and 1 more bronze.
              And btw we can only have 4 gold cards in deck, it's not easy to play them all in one game, so immunity isn't an issue, anymore. You talkin about gold finishers? Like Tibor etc. But hey, now it's even more retarded, you keep your scorches or meginord to play as last card. Much strategy and planning lol.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by VladAtheris View Post
                Keep gold cards as they are now. Making them immune in the first place was retarded. People who are for gold immunity are talking like removing the immunity screwed them but helped everybody else. As if the cards weren't the same for everybody. 'Oh no, they removed gold immunity and now my uncounterable third round finisher doesn't work anymore.'
                The game is far from perfect and some things are imbalanced but it's far better than it was before the patch. Way better. You have no idea how much better it is and how many deck types are viable besides the brainless ones that are at the top of the gwentdb deck list. Of course, if all you've done your whole life was netdeck you will never enjoy the early days of a patch and you will always yearn for the days before the patch when you actually knew what you were doing. That's why you miss the old golds. You don't know how to play the new ones.
                And I'm not saying that as in insult nor do I think it's wrong for people to netdeck. MMORPGs have cookie cutter talents and best in slot items, MOBAs have standard item builds. It's okay to netdeck. Soon you won't miss the old golds because you will have decks that are good and enjoyable. Right now you have only a few decks which are good and probably you don't find them enjoyable.
                this is a zero negativity thread. Give your constructive example (s) why you think golds were initially bad. For example. You said that uncountarable 3rd round finishers is now countarable. Give me an example why do you think vilenretenmerth, as a 3rd round finisher, would not go off opposing a mulligan deck. When all opponent has left are his high str units. Either 3 or 2 of them. Also.
                Why do you think you/ we have a few viable decks and it is not enjoyable and how would you rectify this.
                notice how I dont try to insult you and try to do the same.
                Last edited by Karolis.petrikas; 05-09-17, 05:35.
                A true gwentleman doesn't take offence on a troll, cause troll is whom smashes his barrelsTM

                Absolute OP bonkersTM

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kinglionsfox View Post
                  I truly believe golds losing immunity is the correct direction, but it will take some more updates to smooth out the wrinkles. At the moment it feels rough with certain golds, along with all the other bugs and balancing issues. Give it time, and have faith in CDPR. I sure trust them.
                  Define "wrinkles". Define the "certain golds". Define "balancing issues". Thank you.
                  A true gwentleman doesn't take offence on a troll, cause troll is whom smashes his barrelsTM

                  Absolute OP bonkersTM

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    They should have allowed more cards to interact with gold cards instead of removing gold immunity completely.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      What would be the issue of giving specific gold cards some armor, instead of immunity? - I mean cards like Triss: Butterfly, that requires them to stick around for a little while.

                      Armor wouldn't mean they're buffed point wise, they'd just be a little harder to kill, as opppsed to completely immune. It may take two azor's to kill one, rather than one, for example.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think removing gold immunity was the right move for the game. A card like Borkh is really well balanced right now, making it immune would be way too strong and game defining.

                        But I think the OPs complaint is not without reason. Many golds are too vulnerable right now, and it makes long-term value strategies too weak. For example, I think that no* gold (engine) should be removable by Alzur's Thunder. (*Okay, of course there are always exceptions. But this should be the normal.) You want to remove my Triss: Butt, fine, but at least use a lock or a special removal card, or even two damage dealers. Even Ciri: she is a harder card to balance, and if she is too resilient she can become auto-include again, but I also feel they should make her survive at least a freaking thunder. They already went that way with Yen:Con, and I think maybe a 10 strength TB would be too strong, but no reason not to make her 8+2 armor.

                        I also feel that while they removed gold immunity as a rule, they should introduce immunity to some golds, Ciri: dash being the most obvious example. (And it would even be super flavorful!) Maybe even giving vanilla Geralt immunity would make him not so trash tier. (And it would be funny that he would then be exactly the same as in Witcher 3 Gwent.)
                        Last edited by TrompeLaMort; 22-02-18, 02:36.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          In some ways i agree - there was another depth of tactics back when Golds were (partly) immune. Yes, there were also other problems that were fixed by removing it, but new ones came, that were mentioned by OP.

                          My main problem is with the cards they didnt adjust for this new system. I will focus on one that is one of my favourites and hasnt been mentioned:

                          Ciri

                          This card used to be a staple in so many decks, one of the best Neutral Golds, which makes sense, since Ciri is the most important character in Witcher, after Geralt. Now, with all this removal, no one plays her anymore since all it takes is a stupid thunder and she's gone, making silver spies way safer to get CA. Which means a silver is better than a gold, which shouldnt happen.

                          If CDPR doesnt want Gold Immunity back, at least fix all these cards like Ciri, Triss But, Yen:Con and Villentretenmerth (yes i can spell that without checking!) to be respectable Golds.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Keep in mind that this thread was started nearly 6 months ago and many gold cards are still close too unplayable....

                            Gold Immunity was problematic, so they removed it instead of tweaking it.
                            Sadly this design approach seems to be CDPR's goto-move....

                            That's why I quit playing the game. Call me if rows matter again....



                            Last edited by BornBoring; 22-02-18, 10:26.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The basic problem I see is this.

                              1. You either go point spam deck that has very limited synergy other than generate strenght to your units, by this I mean you do not need "engine" cards or combos that are vulnerable.
                              Elven swap deck would be good example.

                              2. You go towards removal, add 3 AT's, Scorch etc.
                              ST scorch deck, NR AT deck, NG alchemy.

                              Those are the viable decks around at this time.

                              None of them require you to play long combinations and get cards that has fun synergies, you all know what I am talking about here.

                              Scorch and removal is a big problem because it does not only push the game "I will remove all" mentality, it also pushes the game towards "I will spam more".
                              The combo's and synergies have become obsolete, and it kills the fun that Gwent had.


                              Really we need to do something about this.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TweetyLeaf View Post
                                1. You either go point spam deck that has very limited synergy other than generate strenght to your units, by this I mean you do not need "engine" cards or combos that are vulnerable. Elven swap deck would be good example.
                                2. You go towards removal, add 3 AT's, Scorch etc. ST scorch deck, NR AT deck, NG alchemy.
                                Those are the viable decks around at this time.
                                None of them require you to play long combinations and get cards that has fun synergies, you all know what I am talking about here.
                                Scorch and removal is a big problem because it does not only push the game "I will remove all" mentality, it also pushes the game towards "I will spam more". The combo's and synergies have become obsolete, and it kills the fun that Gwent had.
                                Really we need to do something about this.
                                1. I remember people on this forum saying that bronze cards power creep would be a problem, and they were right. Also, create is a problem that goes hand in hand with it. You have mentioned Elven Swap. I've been playing mulligan SC since mulligan exists, and that deck was never a problem. You needed a very good Ele'yas, or a movement mix to make it more or less reliable. But now, bronze cards are too powerful, and cards like Half-Elven Hunter and Elven Scouts vomit units in the board to be buffed. And I really think that mulligan needed some love back then, but not this.

                                2. Monster consume, Harald decks, Ciri: Nova decks that are everywhere...

                                The problem is not removal, the problem is that point spam makes removal a must.

                                As for Gold inmunity, I don't understand why in the actual state of things gold units have low strength. Easily removed, and those who need to be in the board because they don't generate inmediate tempo are screwed. But it would not be difficult to slap the "inmune" tag in some of those cards.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X