Neutral cards should never synergize with any archetypes

[rrc]

Ideally Neutral cards should exist only to fill the gaps of any deck providing nothing but pure point value (boost, damage, destory-on-conditions, do-something-on-deploy). This is to let people fill some spots in their decks to simply get some tempo. But the moment a neutral card can synergize with an archetype, it becomes a big problem. The best example is Spears. Apart from the fact that it is an artifact and has an intrinsic problem with it (being binary to artifact removal), this card synergize with Blood Thirst archetype. For any other deck, spears with 7 provision with 1 ping per round may be OK. But for SK, especially with Crach, it provides incredible value, much much more than what it is supposed to do. It enables Crach to establish a BT of 3 (unlocking full deck potential) much much earlier than what is supposed to be earned.

I know, there are decks now that don't run Spears and still achieving BT, but it doesn't negate the fact that Spears for Crach (or SK, specifically BT) is much much more valuable than any other decks. So, fixing a price for the common value of that card is wrong. It is worth 7 provisions for every other deck, but should be at least 8 or even 9 for Crach (and since we still don't have the feature where as Leaders/Factions affecting the provisions of cards), any neutral card (if it must be a neutral card) synergizing with any faction or leader should be priced at the max of its utility. Even better is never to have any cards that can synergize with any faction or archetype.

The same can be told about Shields with NR (but since boost NR is not very strong, this doesn't seem to be a big problem, netherless), NR boost archetype can get much more value than any other Faction/Archetype from Shields. Avallach being Elf is another example where he can synergize with Elf Swarm archetype (again, luckily, since Elfs are shite right now, it is not an issue). Agura being a Beast (very subtle, but still). etc.

 

[kotpeter]

Nonsense.

What you're trying to say is if there's an archetype based on mechanic A, then no neutral card can have a powerful ability utilizing mechanic A or synergizing with it. If we apply this logic to all existing archetypes, we have two design considerations for neutral cards:
- Neutral cards for pure value (no interesting/synergistic effects);
- Cards defining their own archetypes (impossible without having synergies with faction-specific cards or having neutral as a separate faction).

Perhaps you're mad about certain synergies being too dominant or powerful; well, one can't fit em all. If your deck does not make as much points as most meta decks do, do not surprise that you'll end up losing that much. If you want to win, utilize those synergies, rather than complain about them.

Sorry if I misunderstood you or your thoughts.

 

[Draconifors]

Ideally Neutral cards should exist only to fill the gaps of any deck providing nothing but pure point value (boost

But the moment a neutral card can synergize with an archetype, it becomes a big problem.

NR boost archetype

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Which also highlights the fact that "archetype" is not officially defined anywhere. Therefore, this suggestion could not possibly work unless a brand new definition is added by CDPR.

Besides, a strong interaction or two (in a meta that's going to eventually shift) =/= an entire "faction" needs to be modified by adding restrictions. That would be poor design and decision-making. Spears may be strong in Crach decks, but they're also used in many other decks. Same goes for probably all neutrals that happen to have archetype synergies.

Varying recruit costs for cards, depending on deck... cannot agree with that. Sounds really complicated to code in, too.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

so no neutral cards can do damage since that synergizes with SK bloodthirst and no neutral cards can boost because that synergizes with boostgardian or NR boost and none of them can be 2 str or higher since that synergizes with MO thrive.

sounds good.

 

[rrc]

Nonsense.

What you're trying to say is if there's an archetype based on mechanic A, then no neutral card can have a powerful ability utilizing mechanic A or synergizing with it.
Perhaps you're mad about certain synergies being too dominant or powerful; well, one can't fit em all. If your deck does not make as much points as most meta decks do, do not surprise that you'll end up losing that much. If you want to win, utilize those synergies, rather than complain about them.

Sorry if I misunderstood you or your thoughts.

If I understood your thoughts correctly, then I can say that you misunderstood my thoughts
I am not saying Neutral cards shouldn't get any benefits from faction specific cards (archetypes), but the exact opposite. I am not mad about some decks or anything. I am deducting purely logically.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Which also highlights the fact that "archetype" is not officially defined anywhere. Therefore, this suggestion could not possibly work unless a brand new definition is added by CDPR.

Besides, a strong interaction or two (in a meta that's going to eventually shift) =/= an entire "faction" needs to be modified by adding restrictions. That would be poor design and decision-making. Spears may be strong in Crach decks, but they're also used in many other decks. Same goes for probably all neutrals that happen to have archetype synergies.

Varying recruit costs for cards, depending on deck... cannot agree with that. Sounds really complicated to code in, too.

Perhaps I should have been clear. A single (deploy) boost ability is perfectly fine. But an engine like Shield which can boost many units in a round is more valuable to NR than any other faction. Also, I never said or meant that factions needs to be modified for some neutrals. That would be ridiculous, and you said, poor design and decision-making. Varying recruit cost is a cool idea I had in my mind. Probably I will write about it later in another thread.

---------------------------------------------

To make it clear, let me put it forward differently. How does a card's cost (provision cost) decided? It is based on the value it can bring. For faction specific cards, determining the cost is easy as every card is designed to fit some specific decks and hence the value it can bring is determined properly and the cost is given. Now, for neutrals how should the cost be determined? Lets take Spear as an example. Spear at 7 provision is fine for every other deck. It can help kill an engine or bring the card to kill range. But a Spear in BT deck is much more valuable than any other decks. Similarly a Shield in any other deck is fine at 7 cost, but not the same with NR boost deck. For a Crach BT deck, even 8 cost is fine, but not for others. So, fixing the minimum or average value for a neutral (engine) card brings imbalance when it can synergize with some/few decks and provide much more value than other decks for the given cost. I find that it is an issue.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2019

so no neutral cards can do damage since that synergizes with SK bloodthirst and no neutral cards can boost because that synergizes with boostgardian or NR boost and none of them can be 2 str or higher since that synergizes with MO thrive.

sounds good.

One time damage or one time boost on deploy is fine (as I had mentioned above). MO doesn't need high point neutrals as they have faction specific cards that have more points for the same provisions. NG doesn't have any neutral cards that give NG more value than other factions. For, SK has Spears, NG has (or can have) Shield which provide much more value for them than the rest of the factions/decks, but those cards are valued for everyone's average potential which is wrong.

 

[Lexor]

so no neutral cards can do damage since that synergizes with SK bloodthirst and no neutral cards can boost because that synergizes with boostgardian or NR boost and none of them can be 2 str or higher since that synergizes with MO thrive.

sounds good.

Let's also delete all neutral lock cards as they synergise with NG archetype.

NG doesn't have any neutral cards that give NG more value than other factions.

Really?

 

[DRK3]

I see what OP is trying to say, but it's reallistically impossible.

Synergies are based on mechanics. Remember weaken/strengthen mechanic? Gone. Remember armor mechanic? Gone.

Quite simply, the game became too short on mechanics since HC, its all just based on boosts and damages now, the only real alternative is mill, which is very hated but no one can deny its different.

So, with almost all cards being based on damage and boosts, there will be too many synergies with neutral cards, that quite simply cant be avoided, at least not with this small bronze cardpool.

 

[C7Racehead]

This is basically a disguised "I don't like Spear" thread.

Should all Witchers be NG because all the neutral Witchers aid in fulfilling that archetype for the faction? Lol

 

[OG.laloquaint]

I mean, neutral cards are supposed to support ALL factions. It's just some cards support some archetypes better than others. If you're having trouble with artifacts then just run more artifact removal lol.

 

[Draconifors]

So, fixing the minimum or average value for a neutral (engine) card brings imbalance when it can synergize with some/few decks and provide much more value than other decks for the given cost. I find that it is an issue.

And how exactly should neutrals' provision costs be determined then?

• Based on faction? Makes no sense, for obvious reasons.
• Based on leader? Makes no sense, because leaders are used in more than one deck(type).
• Based on individual faction cards? Makes no sense, because cards can be, and are used in more than one deck(type).
• Based on a combination of cards, an "archetype"? Leaving aside the problem of the nonexistent official definition of "archetype", this is the only option that would make any sense. But it still doesn't make much sense, because cards can get reworked, or nerfed, and archetypes that exist today may cease to exist in the future. New archetypes will almost certainly be created. So basically it would (presumably) be extremely complicated to implement, and it would require constant updating as cards are changed/added/removed. Which quite simply would not be worth it.

All in all, IMO neutrals are perfectly fine the way they are now -- the way they have always been.

 

[rrc]

Let's also delete all neutral lock cards as they synergise with NG archetype.



Really?

NG never needs neutral Lock units for their synergy. They have enough locks themselves. At least not more than what every other factions uses the lock. Isn't it?

You can quote Witchers+Emhyr. But here, neutrals are synergizing with other neutrals mostly. Emhyr is a weird leader that he can mainly mostly synergize with Neutrals.

This is basically a disguised "I don't like Spear" thread.

Should all Witchers be NG because all the neutral Witchers aid in fulfilling that archetype for the faction? Lol

You nailed it. It is kind of a 'I don't like Spears' thread. Not because I think Spears are bad. Spears are good as is they are. They provide good value, as they are, as is, for every other faction/archetype. But for Blood Thirst, they provide more value than any other factions. A neutral should be neutral. Shouldn't support a particular archetype/keyword of a game.

I mean, neutral cards are supposed to support ALL factions. It's just some cards support some archetypes better than others. If you're having trouble with artifacts then just run more artifact removal lol.

Exactly. Neutrals are supposed to support ALL factions in a neutral way. Shouldn't support one specific faction much much much better than other factions and then priced for every factions. I don't have any problem with Spears and I don't want to run artifact removal. I just noticed and wanted to let the community know of my opinion that there are some neutrals who provide much more value to one specific faction/archetype than every others and still priced for least common denominator.

And how exactly should neutrals' provision costs be determined then?

• Based on faction? Makes no sense, for obvious reasons.
• Based on leader? Makes no sense, because leaders are used in more than one deck(type).
• Based on individual faction cards? Makes no sense, because cards can be, and are used in more than one deck(type).
• Based on a combination of cards, an "archetype"? Leaving aside the problem of the nonexistent official definition of "archetype", this is the only option that would make any sense. But it still doesn't make much sense, because cards can get reworked, or nerfed, and archetypes that exist today may cease to exist in the future. New archetypes will almost certainly be created. So basically it would (presumably) be extremely complicated to implement, and it would require constant updating as cards are changed/added/removed. Which quite simply would not be worth it.

All in all, IMO neutrals are perfectly fine the way they are now -- the way they have always been.

Based on Faction: Makes no sense, I agree.
Based on Leader: I think this is a cool idea, but as you noticed, it will be a chaos and difficult to achieve/balance/code.
Based on Individual Faction Cards: Makes no sense, I agree.
Based on Archetype: I agree, archetypes may come and go and it is difficult to balance and implement and is not worth it. One solution I can think of is, to price the neutrals to the max value it can provide in the game. If Spears were SK cards, it can be priced easily at 8 provisions and still be worth it as it enabled BT units much more easily and reliably. Since Spears is neutral and should be priced logically for every other factions, it is priced at the least common denominator which indirectly makes the card broken for one specific build and perfectly balanced card for every one else. I found that to be a problem and wanted to mention it here. Honestly I didn't expect to find this much hostility from this thread

 

[Lexor]

NG never needs neutral Lock units for their synergy. They have enough locks themselves. At least not more than what every other factions uses the lock. Isn't it?

No, it isn't? What about units like Vattier, Vanhemar or even bronze Slave Driver?
The more locked targets the better for NG for various reasons.

 

[4RM3D]

Spears are good as is they are. They provide good value, as they are, as is, for every other faction/archetype. But for Blood Thirst, they provide more value than any other factions. A neutral should be neutral. Shouldn't support a particular archetype/keyword of a game. [...] Neutrals are supposed to support ALL factions in a neutral way. Shouldn't support one specific faction much much much better than other factions and then priced for every factions.

If you don't allow neutral cards to synergize (more) with specific factions, then you are limiting the neutral design too much and this will only lead to more boring cards. Every faction has a tactic that can use certain neutral cards better than other factions and that's alright. Usurper can use extra locks, while Crach can use the Spears. These things flow almost naturally from the need to create specific archetypes and finding the tools for it. Even if some of them are neutral, that's perfectly fine.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

any card that hits more than one target would then synergize too much with SK by your definition rrc. Your concept for limiting neutral design would cripple them.

 

[Sleeperko]

S:blaze have to be the most overpowered card in skellige decks, right?
Stop printing those imbalanced neutrals!

 

[OG.laloquaint]

Crow's Eye definitely needs a change though. That card only supports Monsters and it's neutral.