I see two decks being played around 4.4k MMR.
- Eithné - Spellatel
- Brouver Hoog - Dwarves with Dwarven Agitators and Mahakam Pyrotechnicians
I used to play with pyrotechs and was going okay unti rank 12 or so when i consistently started coming up against decks to counter mine........match-making always favouring my opponent. Haven't played Gwent in weeks since I hit rank 14. Too much like hard work and as you guys say no variety to win successfully in ranked. The SK PC got people to rank 20. Before that it was NR and reapers. Monster decks? Not sure what they used to get to rank 20. Ah well. I'll buy the SP game and maybe go back to online play when it gets interesting again as I got sick of losing with ST haha
gards;n9743001 said:
I reached rank 17 with SC with not much problems, 17 to 18 was a struggle until a changed a few cards; it is doable. I decided to stop at 18, because I'm not a great player and I don't think I could go much further with a no meta deck, but hey, I'm a Squirrel forever and that's the price to pay
Noela try to play other factions, it makes the game more interesting and also helps you to become a better player, as you're going to have a deeper understanding of other factions. I started playing with NR, then moved to SK, then ST and NG lastly. Maybe I'll try Monsters next season.
Theodrik;n9747091 said:
Thank you for the tip, friend. Maybe this sound weird to you, but I prefer to play a faction I'm very fond of, than become a better player. Videogames don't hold my attention for a long time if there is not a narrative element I can feel involved with, and in this case this is SC. But of course from a technical point of view, you are right
Dwarf archetypes. Well, not quite. I've been seeing this one strategy used recently.
Opponent playing a Brouver Hoog deck, but it'd seem then as if the only dwarves in the deck are Barclay Els and Cleaver: The opponent plays Brouver Hoog to summon Els, and then Els seems to summon Cleaver seemingly with no random chance, thus me feeling like it'd only be two dwarf deck.
I can't deny its effectiveness in early play, easy way to get a quick +20 power or so lead over your opponent mostly in R1, but for someone who plays almost solely dwarves in his Brouver deck (abusing my Dennis Cranmer effect to the fullest) it feels a bit.. odd. Those decks have mainly then run what seems a swap/handboost meta of elves.
But the question for someone who plays it: Is it effective on the long run to sacrifice two silvers and leader for this composition? Instead of running someone like Eithné or Francesca.
Opponent playing a Brouver Hoog deck, but it'd seem then as if the only dwarves in the deck are Barclay Els and Cleaver: The opponent plays Brouver Hoog to summon Els, and then Els seems to summon Cleaver seemingly with no random chance, thus me feeling like it'd only be two dwarf deck.
I can't deny its effectiveness in early play, easy way to get a quick +20 power or so lead over your opponent mostly in R1, but for someone who plays almost solely dwarves in his Brouver deck (abusing my Dennis Cranmer effect to the fullest) it feels a bit.. odd. Those decks have mainly then run what seems a swap/handboost meta of elves.
But the question for someone who plays it: Is it effective on the long run to sacrifice two silvers and leader for this composition? Instead of running someone like Eithné or Francesca.
Yeah, the thread is from a time where that question wasn't so easy to answer. Right now ~20% play with Brouver which seems to have the best win rate together with Crach. The rest of ST is doing a lot less good, probably because they can't access Cleaver, Barcley or CA Spy as easily.