Let's compare bronze Syndicate cards to bronzes in other factions for a good laugh!

[SkiZophreniC]

I don't like cards that take away coins. That would have the same terrible problem we have with artifacts/artifact removal.

The same reasoning goes with artifacts, which should be removable without any anti-artifact mechanic. We are asking for some "Armor" or "attrition" for artifacts, that would be interactable by common damage, since the launch of HC and CDPR never listened. Instead we had blind nerf and units cap....

So I m afraid that any suggestion to make coin interactable (I like the idea of a hoard card gathering coins that could be attacked) will not be taken seriously by CDPR ...

 

[Raziel_888]

It's not even like artifacts. Artifacts can be used in every deck, every faction... You can usually go with one artifact removal, considering a good number of them have side effects and by now people know what kind of artifacts are worth removing. And apart from Eldain decks, decks rarely run more than one of two artifacts. Same with lock/unlock, status/purify, big unit/big unit removal... It's all mechanics that you can find +/- at least once in every deck.
A card to remove coins would be a terrible idea as it would be a tech card that is ONLY useful against SY. The only way it would be viable is to actually add that function to already existing cards on top of their other abilities. Otherwise what? You will run one "remove coins" card to tech against SY? 1st, it's not gonna be enough, and SY decks already have more than enough profit cards to replenish their stock. 2nd It would be perfectly useless against other factions. It reminds me of the Roche:Merciless from beta that destroyed an ambushed or as 3RMED said a couple times Lambert:Swordmaster. Running a purify, an unlock or a polyvalent artifact removal is rarely a loss, but who wants to spend provisions on removing coin cards?

The best way as I see it for now (and I obviously am no expert and probably missed other options) would be to link the coins to units somehow. Either when earned, you can "attached them" to units instead of storing them in an untouchable bank, or leave it as a general resource but penalize the loss of cards, or the loss of profit cards.
I mentioned before loosing units could trigger a loss of coins in general, but what if for example every time a unit with "profit" is destroyed, you loose that many coins? That would make the double "profit"/"fee" cards more risky to keep, that would make stocking up coins riskier, that would make hoard harder to attain...

 

[Archan6el]

So we don't want uninteractable coins and we don't want binary coin removal. The suggestion I made earlier similar to Raziel_888 makes even more sense now: The units who get or generate coins keep the coins with them and can give coins to other units for immediate use. Coin hoarding become risky, because if coin hoarding units are killed, the opponent's killer unit card gets the coins (coins are lost when killed with something special). Let some other factions also have cards that generate and use coins (also replacing charges) for a more fun and strategic game.

 

[BoYoDes]

Because coins is a Syndicate only mechanic...

Again - this is no excuse. No excuse to introduce them, no excuse to implement them, especially when you are leaving the other factions high and dry.

What is an "easy" fix if you ask me, there are Units that generate Coins on Deploy or engine-wise. Stick those Coins upon those Units and than use them in a way you use Orders. Will be too close to NR and Orders? Probably. Will be more fair towards the other factions? It will goddamn be, especially when you have CARRYOVER of Coins.


Edit: just saw the same or familiar suggestion was made in the posts before mine.

 

[jmoyano92]

Phillipa is broken af*. At least Vattier is fair, you can see him coming. But Phillipa? Dude [she] stole my Foltest Pride with 7 strength, a lot of charges and in the same turn my opponent could remove all my units with my own card... f* that.

Literally unplayable.

 

[Mancoon1980]

Phillipa is broken af*. At least Vattier is fair, you can see him coming. But Phillipa? Dude [she] stole my Foltest Pride with 7 strength, a lot of charges and in the same turn my opponent could remove all my units with my own card... f* that.

Literally unplayable.

Is terrible being aa Northern realms player these days. I can count on my main game plan being stolen, then the rest machine gunned down with.So when I see king of beggars now I make sure to rope every play. The community by playing these decks are hurting the game. As most of us will stop playing.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Is terrible being aa Northern realms player these days. I can count on my main game plan being stolen, then the rest machine gunned down with.So when I see king of beggars now I make sure to rope every play. The community by playing these decks are hurting the game. As most of us will stop playing.

I agree with the problems in the game. I disagree that any of it is the players fault.

 

[Mancoon1980]

I agree with the problems in the game. I disagree that any of it is the players fault.

I know what you mean. It just the netdeck mentality of people that bother me. Find a broken deck and play it for cheap wins is lame though and hurts the game. I guess I'm still expecting the player base to play something original. Reminds me of that period when everyone was playing dwarfs because it was unbeatable. If your up against a broken deck should you waste your time and frustration levels or just forfeit.

 

[TheBlackSwan]

The whole introduction of the Syndicate faction has been hideous. Before pointing to a few problems I want to say that, it's nice to see a change but sadly, that's the only good thing about this patch. Introducing lightly over-powered cards is understandable and okay but the developers took it to a whole new level.

First of all, the introduction of coin was totally unnecessary and will make it much, much more difficult to balance this game and as it stands now, the math is INSANE! A card like Philippa Eilhart makes a coin = 2 points, which is a disaster.

Furthermore, zeal, order and cool-down mean nothing now. For example, Whoreson's Freak Show can transform coins into points with zeal and on top of that no cool-down and insanity and to make matters even worse it's 6 PC for 6 points.

I love this game and was a fan of Wild Hunt, but I honestly think this is the beginning of the end for this game as they won't be able to balance this game anymore. I hope that doesn't happen, good luck!

 

[Shagric]

I am reading this thread with one laughing and one crying eye..
(mit einem lachenden und einem weinenden auge - a german saying)

 

[Mancoon1980]

The whole introduction of the Syndicate faction has been hideous. Before pointing to a few problems I want to say that, it's nice to see a change but sadly, that's the only good thing about this patch. Introducing lightly over-powered cards is understandable and okay but the developers took it to a whole new level.

First of all, the introduction of coin was totally unnecessary and will make it much, much more difficult to balance this game and as it stands now, the math is INSANE! A card like Philippa Eilhart makes a coin = 2 points, which is a disaster.

Furthermore, zeal, order and cool-down mean nothing now. For example, Whoreson's Freak Show can transform coins into points with zeal and on top of that no cool-down and insanity and to make matters even worse it's 6 PC for 6 points.

I love this game and was a fan of Wild Hunt, but I honestly think this is the beginning of the end for this game as they won't be able to balance this game anymore. I hope that doesn't happen, good luck!

Hence why beta players wanted the beta style of play back. In order to balance the game the changes needed are closer to the beta style of play. I just have not played since the first day of the patch. It could be alot of fun but beyond broken. Removal is not how gwent should be played but now we have machine gun removal meta and a community who cares nothing about the game only wins. I've had my board cleared with NR every match I've played and it's a sick feeling to have a game plan then have freakshow bleed my units, then use insanity, then use tactical advatage, then insanity, then healer card and do it all over.

 

[tulamide]

a community who cares nothing about the game only wins

That's the main point. Currently there are exactly two groups. Those who enjoy winning at all costs are praising SY, those who care about a balanced gameplay over all factions, are hating the current installment of SY.

Most interestingly, a lot of those people who were strongly against SK and called it OP, are now praising SY. Which shows that it was never about competitive gameplay between all factions for them, but simply a selfish "give me the op gameplay as well".

I played on the very first day with 85+ cards from kegs and milling (incl Freakshow, Borsodi Bros, etc.), both with SY and against SY. It was such a horror show that I decided to not play again, until this mess is cleaned up. The changes made are certainly going into the right direction, but it is not yet enough to really balance anything. As long as the coin mechanic isn't attackable in any form, SY will be far superior.

The idea of playing a bunch of criminals is awesome, as is the characters used. Profit without Deficit is a bad idea, as it is in reality.

 

[Guest 4305932]

Hence why beta players wanted the beta style of play back. In order to balance the game the changes needed are closer to the beta style of play.
Removal is not how gwent should be played

But if you remove removal you will have a not interactive engine vs engine or point slam vs point slam. Basically a solitaire game where you don't mind what opponent is doing. (think about nekker deck or greatsword) pretty boring imho. Control has been a fundamental part of this game since cb (one of midwinter problem was that some form of control, like lock, basically diseappeared)

 

[StrykerxS77x]

But if you remove removal you will have a not interactive engine vs engine or point slam vs point slam. Basically a solitaire game where you don't mind what opponent is doing. (think about nekker deck or greatsword) pretty boring imho. Control has been a fundamental part of this game since cb (one of midwinter problem was that some form of control, like lock, basically diseappeared)

I don't think anyone wants to remove control. Just a lot less of it so that engines and other strategies can be more important. When you have a deck that is 95% engines and all of them get removed there is a problem. I liked the game back when Alzurs Thunder was the primary removal card.

 

[Anciluart]

I don't think anyone wants to remove control. Just a lot less of it so that engines and other strategies can be more important. When you have a deck that is 95% engines and all of them get removed there is a problem. I liked the game back when Alzurs Thunder was the primary removal card.

And you think it's entertaining to watch someone clean your board with the "folsted pride"? Or play a card and see how it is worth much less than the opponent's since their cards make the previous ones worth a lot more than their cost, even in the long term.
The control with "kill" will not stop existing in great quantity since the mechanics of charges, if it is allowed to play to freedom, is the strongest that the game has. We have a bit of that with SY today, what happens when your carryover is invulnerable. The charges are even stronger because they are not limited to 9.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

And you think it's entertaining to watch someone clean your board with the "folsted pride"? Or play a card and see how it is worth much less than the opponent's since their cards make the previous ones worth a lot more than their cost, even in the long term.
The control with "kill" will not stop existing in great quantity since the mechanics of charges, if it is allowed to play to freedom, is the strongest that the game has. We have a bit of that with SY today, what happens when your carryover is invulnerable. The charges are even stronger because they are not limited to 9.

If the control changes happened then the super engines like foltest would have to change as well.

 

[Anciluart]

If the control changes happened then the super engines like foltest would have to change as well.

The super engine is demavend. Did you ever let a demavend play without killing his units? It's the most degenerate I've seen in the game.

If they modified the engines more towards a "reinforced tempo", people would feel less obliged to think about controlling their opponents in each game.

Personally I never play without being able to block or muzzle.

 

[DRK3]

Also, there's something i havent seen mentioned.

Everyone is so focused on the 'SY has Zeal on all units', that no one noticed that SY also has no range restrictions - with the exception of coin engines and the borsodi bros, all their cards can work and hit in any row.

 

[Anciluart]

Also, there's something i havent seen mentioned.

Everyone is so focused on the 'SY has Zeal on all units', that no one noticed that SY also has no range restrictions - with the exception of coin engines and the borsodi bros, all their cards can work and hit in any row.

Range restrictions apply to those who follow the laws. SY are criminals so they do what they want.

 

[Guest 4305932]

I don't think anyone wants to remove control. Just a lot less of it so that engines and other strategies can be more important. When you have a deck that is 95% engines and all of them get removed there is a problem. I liked the game back when Alzurs Thunder was the primary removal card.

I don't think a lot less is a good idea either. It will make the remaining control cards auto included. Control is very tricky in Gwent, one big engine can easily win the round alone (Foltest Pride, Vysigota) and because of the "no draw between turn" you have a couple of turns to destroy the card or lose.

If the control changes happened then the super engines like foltest would have to change as well.

When you have to do these kind of cascade changes it means that the first change was not a good idea.