Homecoming Reveal

[Kargadum]

First of all, I appreciate the efforts of cdpr to make Gwent a great game.
I'm mostly glad what i'm seen. The cards are more beautiful (it still the best premium cards of all online card game), I like the way how the edge are worn, and so I think we do not need anymore gold/bronze border.
Maybe something can be do to distinguish more gold/bronze in top left corner?

I love new row system, but we need ofc see more cards abilities, but I think the placement can be more interesting than the current situation. Two rows instead 3 seems OK.

New Mulligan window and system is awesome.

And finally, the board. I appreciate the new design (all the details) as the old sober one, but we need to get used to a novelty I guess.
Effectively, 3d leaders are not in osmosis with the rest of board, maybe rework some filter/shadows. The leaders animation are great.

As previously mentioned, we might have an option to switch board for people who need more clarity (visually impaired) and maybe less requirement system. But I know this can be heartbreaking for the design team.

I still enjoy the game since the open beta start, and particulary all the updates (maybe less the winter one x) ) who delivered each time a new vision, a new game, a new flavor while taking risks to disturb the conservationists. I never see a beta game so interesting and pleasant to follow and play^^.

So I'm confident that this new gwent will be great. We just to need more patient.

EDIT: 3 rows with 3 differents abilities seems difficult to imagine and balance. Maybe 3 rows with 2 abilities, so if we play a card on his "wrong" row, it can be
disadvantageous, an creat an interesting gameplay. But it seems difficult to add a third row on the new board^^.

 

[-Arkane]

Homecoming aka stripping away everything that made it Gwent.
Wouldn't be surprised if they rename the game too while they're at it.

This homecoming reveal;
-2 Rows { Shocker, mobile simplified "gwent" here we come.}
-More RNG. {remember player agency we mentioned.. April fools hehe.}
-Silver cards seeya { Homecoming we meant witcher 3 gwent sorry for the confusion mah bad}
-30 cards with 2 bronze slots. We care about consistency and skill even if it doesn't seem so just believe us okay.
-3D Puppets for the kids to say wow, our new demographic btw.
-Why play on a board Tavern style when you can immerse yourself in dirt. You wanted dark/gritty tone we gotchu.
-Rows mean something unlike now, see we listen..(The Irony being that) rows used to mean something in closed beta of-which we could've simply added these row abilities {in like a patch or so} but we like jumping through hoops instead.

-Balancing around faction abilities/gold immunity and general card balance was too hard for us so we present to you Gwent-homecoming 1.0. bring your calculators because the point spamming/rng probabilities will simply blow you away.
-We're still messing around with weather who knows we might accidently get it right you'll just have to wait and find out in a month or so, we seem to be on schedule I think.

It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to us "core" players from closed beta who were vocal about the game heading here time ago. I mean after seeing the progession of patches before this homecoming joke and seeing the game turn into a point spam fiesta cdpr only have themselves to blame. They won't be able to compete with MTG Arena/Artifact as this homecoming version of gwent offers nothing to those players and anyone else interested in picking up an engaging CCG.

CDPR's failure was trying to cater towards the hearthstone demographic instead of building upon the closed beta gwent, a game which had untapped potential, such a shame really.

It took them them 2 years of being in beta to scrap it and give you a different game. The cleverness was the 2 years of patches slowly removing gwents identity to get here, so what remains of the game is simply the generic stuff and the intial idea of more points =win oh and ofcourse there's witcher characters in it.

Anyways I'm now convinced homecoming infact does mean something different at CDPR.
/End rant

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Homecoming aka stripping away everything that made it Gwent.
Wouldn't be surprised if they rename the game too while they're at it.

This homecoming reveal;
-2 Rows { Shocker, mobile simplified "gwent" here we come.}
-More RNG. {remember player agency we mentioned.. April fools hehe.}
-Silver cards seeya { Homecoming we meant witcher 3 gwent sorry for the confusion mah bad}
-30 cards with 2 bronze slots. We care about consistency and skill even if it doesn't seem so just believe us okay.
-3D Puppets for the kids to say wow, our new demographic btw.
-Why play on a board Tavern style when you can immerse yourself in dirt. You wanted dark/gritty tone we gotchu.
-Rows mean something unlike now, see we listen..(The Irony being that) rows used to mean something in closed beta of-which we could've simply added these row abilities {in like a patch or so} but we like jumping through hoops instead.

-Balancing around faction abilities/gold immunity and general card balance was too hard for us so we present to you Gwent-homecoming 1.0. bring your calculators because the point spamming/rng probabilities will simply blow you away.
-We're still messing around with weather who knows we might accidently get it right you'll just have to wait and find out in a month or so, we seem to be on schedule I think.

It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to us "core" players from closed beta who were vocal about the game heading here time ago. I mean after seeing the progession of patches before this homecoming joke and seeing the game turn into a point spam fiesta cdpr only have themselves to blame. They won't be able to compete with MTG Arena/Artifact as this homecoming version of gwent offers nothing to those players and anyone else interested in picking up an engaging CCG.

CDPR's failure was trying to cater towards the hearthstone demographic instead of building upon the closed beta gwent, a game which had untapped potential, such a shame really.

It took them them 2 years of being in beta to scrap it and give you a different game. The cleverness was the 2 years of patches slowly removing gwents identity to get here, so what remains of the game is simply the generic stuff and the intial idea of more points =win oh and ofcourse there's witcher characters in it.

Anyways I'm now convinced homecoming infact does mean something different at CDPR.
/End rant

Not sure where you are coming up with some of the stuff at the top. How is it going to have more RNG? 30 cards does not mean there won't be consistency and skill. There are many examples of evidence showing otherwise.

Gold immunity was absolutely terrible. If that's what you are wanting then I am not surprised you don't like the homecoming video.

 

[partci]

... Anyways I'm now convinced homecoming infact does mean something different at CDPR.

Yup, I call it Farewelling.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

I have to disagree with most of what you said.

-More RNG. {remember player agency we mentioned.. April fools hehe.}

We haven't any indicator that there will be really more RNG. All that was said so far points in the opposite direction.
We only have seen a couple of cards which basically kept the same RNG effects they already had, but shifted a bit. And a new damage dealing engine, which were RNG ever since closed Beta.

-Silver cards seeya { Homecoming we meant witcher 3 gwent sorry for the confusion mah bad}

Why should silvers be kept? With the new system they aren't needed anymore and keeping obsolete stuff for no reason would have been a really bad decision.

-30 cards with 2 bronze slots. We care about consistency and skill even if it doesn't seem so just believe us okay.

Aren't you complaining that Gwent isn't returing enough to closed beta? In closed beta there was a lot less consistency. Now most decks can thin too only a couple of cards left, which absolutly wasn't the case back then. Most factions even had less mulligans.
Moreover, having more consistency doesn't mean more skill, it is rather the opposite.
And most importantly have you watched the video? They showed us that every player has a lot more mulligans, such that the increased card pool will hardly affect the conistency.

--Rows mean something unlike now, see we listen..(The Irony being that) rows used to mean something in closed beta of-which we could've simply added these row abilities {in like a patch or so} but we like jumping through hoops instead.

Reworking most cards, and adding at least one completly new and unique system in a single patch, how exactly should they have done that? That would just mean having HC sooner, and that HC should have happened earlier is something hardly anyone would disagree with.

-Balancing around faction abilities/gold immunity and general card balance was too hard for us so we present to you Gwent-homecoming 1.0. bring your calculators because the point spamming/rng probabilities will simply blow you away.

Where did those assumptions come from? Faction abilities will be readded in a more healthy state. And removing Gold immunity is something most of the community agrees on.
And how can point spamming get any worse than the current version? Any change there will likely be an improvement. Also RNG and point spam are in most cases opposites, except Create, which will be gone.
So, what do you really want? You disliked some of the new engines because they were too RNG for you. But without that RNG they would just become point spamming tools. That doesn't really make sense to me.

-We're still messing around with weather who knows we might accidently get it right you'll just have to wait and find out in a month or so, we seem to be on schedule I think.

Why keep something which isn't working? The closed beta and the first open beta implementation were both broken, so of course they had to be changed.

It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to us "core" players from closed beta who were vocal about the game heading here time ago.

I am a closed beta player and I see enough others still around, so you should only talk for yourself.

CDPR's failure was trying to cater towards the hearthstone demographic instead of building upon the closed beta gwent, a game which had untapped potential, such a shame really.

And most of the things that gave it potential will be kept with HC, while a couple of unnecessary things will be gone.

 

[sfruzz]

-Please, give back Nilfgaard the Sun! Why even change that one?

They haven't. That should be the back of cards in the graveyard. If you go through the video again, you'll see that both player have a pile with a skull as a cardback. I also missed that at first.

One of Burza's answers said that there are decks that can go through ALL cards. That wouldn't be possible if what you say is true. Also they said we draw more cards now. 3 in the second round and 3 in the final round.

How is it going to have more RNG? 30 cards does not mean there won't be consistency and skill. There are many examples of evidence showing otherwise.

Having only two copies for bronzes diluted in a 30 cards deck will increase variance. Even if you draw by the end of the game the entirety of your deck, sequencing is important and it is less likely to have both pieces of a combo in your hand at a given time. Even more so with the card limits in your hand of 10 and the fact that you'll have more trouble blacklisting (e.g. Dagon Nova). By the time you draw the bronze cards, you were looking for, you might have already lost.

Same goes for tutors. Imagine having old Kaedweni Cavalry and Redanian Elite interact. It gets way harder without a Reaver Scout, that gets you 100% the card you are looking for. Sure, you can have more card draws, but there is no guarantee you'll fish for your combo piece / engine / big finisher. Hence more RNG involved.

Without the actual gamefootage this are still predictions and speculations. True. Same as yours. Out of the information we got, I predict more RNG in the game and less consistency.

People miss their 3th row, but by the time Homecoming hits, they'll all miss their 3th bronze copy more.

 

[-Arkane]

Not sure where you are coming up with some of the stuff at the top. How is it going to have more RNG? 30 cards does not mean there won't be consistency and skill. There are many examples of evidence showing otherwise.

Gold immunity was absolutely terrible. If that's what you are wanting then I am not surprised you don't like the homecoming video.

Yup, I call it Farewelling.

In bold which part do you need help on?

"There are many examples of evidence showing otherwise."
Mind showing me these examples and evidences I don't browse these forums or reddit that much sorry. I'll try to keep it brief for you. You see having 3 copies of a card increases consistency in deckbuiling and the chance of you drawing the card in the first place or from a mulligan. Now increasing the deck count to 30 and also limiting bronze copies to two reduces these chances of seeing that copy of a card.

I like your selective reponse and guess i'll take the bait with the gold immunity. It wasn't terrible it's what made gold cards have identity instead of you know just the border being gold and that. Half or more gold cards are not even played of which a fair amount are even worse than bronze cards now.

 

[appoxa]

Moreover, having more consistency doesn't mean more skill, it is rather the opposite.

I can't agree with that. Less consistency simply means that you are more often confronted with uneven draws. You play bad cards against good and good cards against bad. In this way, one's own abilities play less of a role.
The idea that it would mean more skill comes from the fact that you have to face unexpected situations more often due to less consistency. However, the imbalance that this creates is more serious than the gain of the challenge.

I think in this context, cards that thinn out their own deck will become even more important in order to get the key cards of their own deck more securely.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

 

[-Arkane]

I have to disagree with most of what you said.

We haven't any indicator that there will be really more RNG. All that was said so far points in the opposite direction.
We only have seen a couple of cards which basically kept the same RNG effects they already had, but shifted a bit. And a new damage dealing engine, which were RNG ever since closed Beta.

Why should silvers be kept? With the new system they aren't needed anymore and keeping obsolete stuff for no reason would have been a really bad decision.


Aren't you complaining that Gwent isn't returing enough to closed beta? In closed beta there was a lot less consistency. Now most decks can thin too only a couple of cards left, which absolutly wasn't the case back then. Most factions even had less mulligans.
Moreover, having more consistency doesn't mean more skill, it is rather the opposite.
And most importantly have you watched the video? They showed us that every player has a lot more mulligans, such that the increased card pool will hardly affect the conistency.


Reworking most cards, and adding at least one completly new and unique system in a single patch, how exactly should they have done that? That would just mean having HC sooner, and that HC should have happened earlier is something hardly anyone would disagree with.


Where did those assumptions come from? Faction abilities will be readded in a more healthy state. And removing Gold immunity is something most of the community agrees on.
And how can point spamming get any worse than the current version? Any change there will likely be an improvement. Also RNG and point spam are in most cases opposites, except Create, which will be gone.
So, what do you really want? You disliked some of the new engines because they were too RNG for you. But without that RNG they would just become point spamming tools. That doesn't really make sense to me.


Why keep something which isn't working? The closed beta and the first open beta implementation were both broken, so of course they had to be changed.


I am a closed beta player and I see enough others still around, so you should only talk for yourself.


And most of the things that gave it potential will be kept with HC, while a couple of unnecessary things will be gone.

There's alot of irrelevant rambling/strawmans and blanket statements here of which doesn't address anything or make sense whatsoever, it's hard to take you seriously.. especially with some of the stuff in bold.

I am a closed beta player and I see enough others still around, so you should only talk for yourself.

Yeah you're one of the later ones still left I guess, probably the same bunch that wanted most of these changes back then just as the midwinter update/create which alot of us were warning about the games decline. Most of us left and check up on the game every now and then so I'm pretty confident that I'm not just speaking for myself.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

You see having 3 copies of a card increases consistency in deckbuiling and the chance of you drawing the card in the first place or from a mulligan. Now increasing the deck count to 30 and also limiting bronze copies to two reduces these chances of seeing that copy of a card.

Except there are other factors here that increase consistency. You draw more cards in homecoming, 3 cards in round 2 and 3 cards in round 3. You also get more mulligans with homecoming that are also tied to your leader. So saying 30 cards and 2 copies of bronzes and declaring that consistency is dead is not something someone can say with confidence. Burza also clarified in one of his Q and A's that there are decks that can go through all 30 cards. Just like now.

I like your selective reponse and guess i'll take the bait with the gold immunity. It wasn't terrible it's what made gold cards have identity instead of you know just the border being gold and that. Half or more gold cards are not even played of which a fair amount are even worse than bronze cards now.

Gold cards are more powerful with better abilities and a higher cost. Why do they need more identity than that? There were bad golds back when they were immune as well so I don't know why that is important.

Gold immunity made the worst matches ever in Gwent. Two off the top of my head was Spellatel which just played removal over and over again with golds you couldn't hurt and then dropped some big buffed up cards at the end. It made the game extremely interactive. The strategy against this deck was to just throw your cards at it that you knew were going to die anyway and save a few good one's for the end. It was so dumb. The other example in my head was the NG one where in the last round they just start creating golds over and over again. Just about impossible to counter. But you either had a magic counter or you lose. Gold immunity was simply a bad mechanic in the end. It may have been fun occasionally but it wasn't possible to balance. These ridiculous decks just kept popping up.

 

[Mashajab]

There's alot of irrelevant rambling/strawmans and blanket statements here of which doesn't address anything or make sense whatsoever, it's hard to take you seriously.. especially with some of the stuff in bold.

I am a closed beta player and I see enough others still around, so you should only talk for yourself.

Yeah you're one of the later ones still left I guess, probably the same bunch that wanted most of these changes back then just as the midwinter update/create which alot of us were warning about the games decline. Most of us left and check up on the game every now and then so I'm pretty confident that I'm not just speaking for myself.

I'm here from closed betas 1st day.. And yesterday I started Gwent.. And I press Alt+f4 and closed it.. Iam so enraged, disgusted Iam even not able to play it anymore..

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Same goes for tutors. Imagine having old Kaedweni Cavalry and Redanian Elite interact. It gets way harder without a Reaver Scout, that gets you 100% the card you are looking for. Sure, you can have more card draws, but there is no guarantee you'll fish for your combo piece / engine / big finisher. Hence more RNG involved.

I honstely think that is a good thing.
If we look at Greatswords, the whole deck does rely only on two cards the Greatswords and the Longships, the rest is just support. If the variance is increased and tutors removed, it becomes important to have the deck be synergetic as a whole and not only just two cards. You have to construct your deck in a way that reduces bad draws. Of course that could already be down with Djengen being an alternative at damaging the greatswords, Joana to work with the damaged units by the longships if no greatswords are there, young berserkers to get triggered by longships and soak up one point of damage, the Boar of the Sea, Smith to heal units. Some might not be competetive because they are too weak, but we have seen a couple of those in earlier versions of the deck, which were all replaced, because with all the consistency the deck can get by thinners they aren't needed.
And from what we have seen and heard, I expect that the way to go. Instead on relying on a particular two card combo, players will have a lot more tools to achieve the same thing. That is the reason why a lot of archetypes are removed for now, to give the rest more cards to work with.

I can't agree with that. Less consistency simply means that you are more often confronted with uneven draws. You play bad cards against good and good cards against bad. In this way, one's own abilities play less of a role.
The idea that it would mean more skill comes from the fact that you have to face unexpected situations more often due to less consistency. However, the imbalance that this creates is more serious than the gain of the challenge.

My favourite deck is a really high variety deck and thanks to that I'm having 3 to 4 quite different startegies only depending on my starting hand, and I had a lot of games, where I only had 1 gold at all, but won nonetheless. And that style of playing makes the game really interesting in my opinion, because even with the same decks playing against each other hardly two games would be the same.

And what I would call the skill with that much variety is to construct the deck in a way that you have no single key card, but rather have a couple of key cards which all work.
And that is also what I'm expecting from homecoming, giving players more tools to do nearly the same thing, such that there won't have to be real key cards.

 

[aquator]

Uh, wow.

I feel like I am re-living the painful moments of the degradation of once mighty and complex Star Wars Galaxies to World Of StarWars. Anyone playing it? No? Cause all the players left due to the New Game Enhancements patch that made it a so much better game.

If I'd want to play Gwentstone, I could do that, but this was something different. Not saying there are no good ideas lingering there, but in general, no thank you - but not sure the players have a vote in this.

Can you at least keep an old server running for the lame ones like me? For folks who actually favor the content over the looks. Thinking again, make that scalable - for some unexpected surprise from the player base.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

They haven't. That should be the back of cards in the graveyard. If you go through the video again, you'll see that both player have a pile with a skull as a cardback. I also missed that at first.


Having only two copies for bronzes diluted in a 30 cards deck will increase variance. Even if you draw by the end of the game the entirety of your deck, sequencing is important and it is less likely to have both pieces of a combo in your hand at a given time. Even more so with the card limits in your hand of 10 and the fact that you'll have more trouble blacklisting (e.g. Dagon Nova). By the time you draw the bronze cards, you were looking for, you might have already lost.

Same goes for tutors. Imagine having old Kaedweni Cavalry and Redanian Elite interact. It gets way harder without a Reaver Scout, that gets you 100% the card you are looking for. Sure, you can have more card draws, but there is no guarantee you'll fish for your combo piece / engine / big finisher. Hence more RNG involved.

Without the actual gamefootage this are still predictions and speculations. True. Same as yours. Out of the information we got, I predict more RNG in the game and less consistency.

People miss their 3th row, but by the time Homecoming hits, they'll all miss their 3th bronze copy more.

I get your concern but we can't say reliably how consistent it will be until we play it. For example you are lamenting that we don't have a reaver scout but without looking at all the new cards we can't say there won't be something like that. Burza didn't say that there would be no tutors. Just less of them.

Honestly though I might argue that the game right now is too consistent. NG decks that play every single card in the deck are a bit ridiculous.

 

[appoxa]

And that style of playing makes the game really interesting in my opinion, because even with the same decks playing against each other hardly two games would be the same.

Assuming your opponent knows how to play, you could start with the same cards and yet the match would be different because your opponent now knows that he has to use his resources differently. So you would have different experiences with the same cards. However, consistency does not mean that you can always downplay the same process.
We still have enough variance in the game. Even chess, which is always built up in the same way, has countless variants that can be played differently. It is therefore absurd to assume that Gwent would always run the same way if consistency were to be improved or maintained at a high level.

 

[DMaster2]

1) Having only two copies for bronzes diluted in a 30 cards deck will increase variance. Even if you draw by the end of the game the entirety of your deck, sequencing is important and it is less likely to have both pieces of a combo in your hand at a given time. Even more so with the card limits in your hand of 10 and the fact that you'll have more trouble blacklisting (e.g. Dagon Nova). By the time you draw the bronze cards, you were looking for, you might have already lost.

2) Same goes for tutors. Imagine having old Kaedweni Cavalry and Redanian Elite interact. It gets way harder without a Reaver Scout, that gets you 100% the card you are looking for. Sure, you can have more card draws, but there is no guarantee you'll fish for your combo piece / engine / big finisher. Hence more RNG involved.

3) Without the actual gamefootage this are still predictions and speculations. True. Same as yours. Out of the information we got, I predict more RNG in the game and less consistency.

4) People miss their 3th row, but by the time Homecoming hits, they'll all miss their 3th bronze copy more.

1) Thank god for that. I'm sick and tired of decks with perfect thinning and that play the same way every single game. Finally we'll see more variety, even within the same matchups
2) Again thank god, half of the cards in any deck right now it's a tutor for something else. That many tutors were a mistake and i'm glad they realized it
3) Which is exactly the point of these changes. Less consistency, something that this game needs for it's long term future, like it or not.
4) 2 bronzes are a necessary step. It was either that or doubling the deck size (Yugioh/MTG). What you don't understand is that the consistency of gwent is it's downfall in the long term.
We already saw this effect at midwinter, where they had to print rng on cards and powercreep (half-elf hunter/bearmaster) to make new bronzes see play, the others are basically unplayed.
How do you think they could release more bronze in a game with so much hyper efficiency? Only with powercreep.

With this whole change there is much more room for bronze design. Tech bronzes will probably see some degree of play. With the new "army limit" system and max 2 copies many more bronzes will be viable because you may want to play a few more golds and have to use "less valuable/tech" bronzes instead.

 

[appoxa]

Which is exactly the point of these changes. Less consistency, something that this game needs for it's long term future, like it or not.

If I wanted to have random match results, I would choose a trading card game of any competition.

How do you think they could release more bronze in a game with so much hyper efficiency? Only with powercreep.

I am always surprised that it is assumed that more playability would only be possible with Powercreep. More ways to play are key. For example, theme-based decks such as a focus on the cursed or items.

This should not be confused with forcing the cards to be used by reducing the limit.

 

[-Arkane]

Except there are other factors here that increase consistency. You draw more cards in homecoming, 3 cards in round 2 and 3 cards in round 3. You also get more mulligans with homecoming that are also tied to your leader. So saying 30 cards and 2 copies of bronzes and declaring that consistency is dead is not something someone can say with confidence. Burza also clarified in one of his Q and A's that there are decks that can go through all 30 cards. Just like now.



Gold cards are more powerful with better abilities and a higher cost. Why do they need more identity than that? There were bad golds back when they were immune as well so I don't know why that is important.

Gold immunity made the worst matches ever in Gwent. Two off the top of my head was Spellatel which just played removal over and over again with golds you couldn't hurt and then dropped some big buffed up cards at the end. It made the game extremely interactive. The strategy against this deck was to just throw your cards at it that you knew were going to die anyway and save a few good one's for the end. It was so dumb. The other example in my head was the NG one where in the last round they just start creating golds over and over again. Just about impossible to counter. But you either had a magic counter or you lose. Gold immunity was simply a bad mechanic in the end. It may have been fun occasionally but it wasn't possible to balance. These ridiculous decks just kept popping up.

I never stated that consistency is dead.. the change will however decrease consistency is what I was I getting at. Having some leaders that grant you more mulligans isn't good game mechanics in regards to consistency and player agency as a whole.. same thing for the oh there will be some decks that can go through all 30 cards but for the most part that won't be the case.

Yes gold cards are more powerful but not all of them or even a good portion of them were after the change as I stated in my other post. Ofcourse there were bad golds before the gold immunity change but with the immunity they were easily distinct from the silver/bronze cards even if they were bad. Now the limit of 4 just feels artifical and the gold cards just symbolise this card good in deck yes. It gave gold cards identity before.

With gold immunity the issue was that there weren't enough cards at the time that interacted with them. Considering these were still very early days of the game and with the limited card pool you would only assume during later patches they would start releasing more cards that interacted with them aka dirstupt/lock, target etc and still keep that unique aspect of the game. Iorverth/Vernon Roche as a gold being able to target other golds was interesting.

Spellotail was a skillful deck of which has nothing to do with the gold immunity being the problem with it if any. People complained about them not being able to run engine decks against it or ''interact'' with it and it just removing units and using weather to control the game. This aggrevated mostly low ranked players who ofcourse over reacted and wanted everything nerfed. I digress but the gold immunity was not the problem with that deck as its win condition was Dol blathana which could/would get scorched by decent players. It was a predictable deck with an obvious win condition but it was a control deck through and through. However this was the begginning of people just wanting everything nerfed and axed instead of critically evaluating what they wanted or understoodd where the direction of the game would be heading with their demands of change/variance. I'm all for change but not at the expense of the game losing it's charm/uniqueness and turning into every other generic CCG.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

If I wanted to have random match results, I would choose a trading card game of any competition.
.

I'm thinking there is a difference between less consistency and near perfect consistency. Perfect consistency makes the games really predictable. No one wants random results. Which is why the coin flip is being worked on.

Post automatically merged: Sep 4, 2018

I never stated that consistency is dead.. the change will however decrease consistency is what I was I getting at. Having some leaders that grant you more mulligans isn't good game mechanics in regards to consistency and player agency as a whole.. same thing for the oh there will be some decks that can go through all 30 cards but for the most part that won't be the case.

They might be less consistent. It's hard to tell. Some decks will apparently be able to go through the 30 cards. Just like we have now. Some can do it and some can't. Plenty of good decks don't go through all 25 cards.

Yes gold cards are more powerful but not all of them or even a good portion of them were after the change as I stated in my other post. Ofcourse there were bad golds before the gold immunity change but with the immunity they were easily distinct from the silver/bronze cards even if they were bad. Now the limit of 4 just feels artifical and the gold cards just symbolise this card good in deck yes. It gave gold cards identity before.

Just have to agree to disagree on golds I guess. IMO they will have plenty of identity.

With gold immunity the issue was that there weren't enough cards at the time that interacted with them. Considering these were still very early days of the game and with the limited card pool you would only assume during later patches they would start releasing more cards that interacted with them aka dirstupt/lock, target etc and still keep that unique aspect of the game. Iorverth/Vernon Roche as a gold being able to target other golds was interesting.

They tried some of that but it didn't end up working. Having one or two golds that can actually kill all other golds wasn't a good idea. Made those golds mandatory. I don't think this mechanic is worth the trouble as the game just revolves around the golds. Using them and countering them is the whole game.

Spellotail was a skillful deck of which has nothing to do with the gold immunity being the problem with it if any. People complained about them not being able to run engine decks against it or ''interact'' with it and it just removing units and using weather to control the game. This aggrevated mostly low ranked players who ofcourse over reacted and wanted everything nerfed. I digress but the gold immunity was not the problem with that deck as its win condition was Dol blathana which could/would get scorched by decent players. It was a predictable deck with an obvious win condition but it was a control deck through and through.

It wasn't just a control deck. It was a control deck that put nothing on the board for most of the game aside from golds. That was unbelievable boring and shows why gold immunity was bad and when that got fixed another similar deck pops up with the same type of issue.

 

[-Arkane]

I'm thinking there is a difference between less consistency and near perfect consistency. Perfect consistency makes the games really predictable. No one wants random results. Which is why the coin flip is being worked on.

Post automatically merged: Sep 4, 2018

"They might be less consistent. It's hard to tell. Some decks will apparently be able to go through the 30 cards. Just like we have now. Some can do it and some can't. Plenty of good decks don't go through all 25 cards."

Yeah I'm not aruging that you need to cycle through your entire deck just stating in general the change will reduce consistency, I'm also over this game like a year or so ago so I just pop in to see how it's doing and randomly log on here and there. Nice to see a few oldies around.



"Just have to agree to disagree on golds I guess. IMO they will have plenty of identity."

Fair enough.


"They tried some of that but it didn't end up working. Having one or two golds that can actually kill all other golds wasn't a good idea. Made those golds mandatory. I don't think this mechanic is worth the trouble as the game just revolves around the golds. Using them and countering them is the whole game."

They didn't really try did they hardly much was released at the time or even after to interact with golds It's not hard having Gold/silver even some bronze cards that interact with golds is it now, I mean shackles wasn't enough now was it. It just seemed too much work for them so they took the easy route imo.


"It wasn't just a control deck. It was a control deck that put nothing on the board for most of the game aside from golds. That was unbelievable boring and shows why gold immunity was bad and when that got fixed another similar deck pops up with the same type of issue."

I guess engine deck players must feel that way about it but Idk it was very predictable and I don't think a saskia/Schirru or Eithine on board with gold immunity was the problem. I feel you're confusing what people where whining about at the time about this deck, it wasn't gold immunity save maybe borkh which was one of the best designed control cards in the game imo. The deck was still viable after the gold change I was running it at 4k. It's the weather nerf that hit the deck hard at the time.

Sorry can't get the hang of these forums {prefered the old one} how do I quote each portion of text from a post the way you did?

I've replied in the quote but yh.