pthieu1986;n9763111 said:
I'm in the same boat. Won't even bother making the 6 round daily atm. It just doesn't have the same feeling to it dropping a WH warrior or hound on the siege row.
Hope the change it back to what it was. I'm a big fan of changes if they work well but this one is a huge letdown IMO.
Hydrahead;n9764101 said:I'm in the same boat. Won't even bother making the 6 round daily atm. It just doesn't have the same feeling to it dropping a WH warrior or hound on the siege row.
I also used to think that way, but i think it makes sense to have more agile units. Previously, after some weeks of playing you could know where the enemy would place their key units, and that gave you an advantage to place some weather effects for example, or also due to this reason, Igni was working so good
Making things agile is giving more diversity to the game since the player decides where to put their units. It may look stupid to stack them all in one row and then see an insane Lacerate, but in the end it was the choice of the player and not something already determined by CDPR
TV_JayArr;n9760891 said:
again, agility should be a thing of the past, i mean, you can still put the unit in the row it had before, its your call and your fault if you lose for misplaying, not CDPR limiting you with defined rows
However, i agree with new cards, not much to be excited since they are supporting weak archetypes, which is definitely good, but i think there's still the issue of tempo as a meta game. For instance, i think that the gold barrel boon effect will be very situational and forgotten since you need to have lot of units and then to make round last long enough to get some value from it... same with the gold you have to discard and just gives you 12 point value...
Still we have the issue of the coin flip and different pvp game modes! events are cool but we need some arena / random game modes! they only need an UI to be live as the content is already in the game, no need to think too much about it
arihuss;n9765711 said:
Well that's my argument to why they should go back to the old way lol. With some knowledge of the game you would proactively know where to place weather effects. Now you just place weather randomly and hope it will make sense later on in the game.
arihuss;n9765711 said:
Sorry for the double quote/post. I don't agree with that, mate.
It's like saying hey, let's play chess but we're gonna move the pieces around for some diverse games. That's not my definition of diversity anyway but I can see what you mean. I just liked the fact that cards like towers and machines are on the siege row and infantry are on the melee row. It feels so pointless now. 
arihuss;n9765711 said:
arihuss;n9765831 said:
I think you completely missunderstood me. It is the games "fault" to make it the only right choice playing all units in the siege row to eat 1 Lacerate instead of several weather/hazard and Whale Harpooner proks. Playing around Igni and stuff is playing smart, if you don't do it you probably be punished for it; Thats healthy! My reference to the Gwent Slam 2 matches shows your diversity that agility brings.
Playing, for example weather, in advance (as you mentioned) is a result of game knowledge and hand reading - 2 important skills in a CCG in my opinion - this shall be benefitted. To be allowed and to be able to play units in a row is a huge difference. If the matchup/meta makes it that both players play in one row solely, it can be fine as an exception but not as the norm. Row-locking natively limits you in your decisions, just taking that away was a tremendous crack in game balance. As with the removing of gold immunity, they didn't prepare it, they rushed it.
As for me, I want to play Gwent. Not a random and dumb: throw every card on a board with 3 rows on two sides and outmuscle eachother, by plaing in one row solely; With phenomenal graphics/visuals and voice lines - already tried a few language packages, all of them made me smile for different reasons - that pretends to be Gwent.