Just to clarify, this is not because I think Lockdown is a balancing issue.
Ever since Homecoming started Lockdown has existed in its current form.
The issue I take with Lockdown is the fact that matchups are turned binary with this leader ability, being heavily favored or (most of the time) heavily unfavored, furthermore the whole gamestate in games involving this leader ability are needlessly dumbed down, i.e. players have a lot less to take into consideration and to careful use one's leader ability, especially multiple charges leader abilities, which is then removed from the game.
My point is that games with Lockdown are inherently very simplified and needlessly close to being auto-pilot.
If we would have a leader ability "At the start of the match roll a 6-sided die, if you get a 5 or 6 you win the match, otherwise you lose the match" it would not be a balancing issue, after all the winrate of that leader ability would only be 1/3, so clearly it could not be an issue, right ?
Dumbing down the game is inherently a problematic concept, especially if it is 100% consistently in all games.
Just to clarify, control as a concept is completely different from what I am stating above, given that control as a gameplan relies on tools that are intended to trade evenly or even trade-up, Lockdown is an immediate trading of the leader abilities, leaving one player ahead (due to the deck structure and the leader provisions) and one player behind, without even making a move, trading cards and is not by itself something risky, like keeping a control tool for Round 3, which might find no value.
Beyond all that, I have to admit that Lockdown has sometimes been useful as a counter against certain meta decks, however in the end I (personally) disliked these metas even more afterwards, given that a game against Lockdown has (in my opinion) always been even less fun than playing against a Tier 1 deck you know you are going to lose against, so the response to certain toxic metas in the past has only made said metas even more toxic and even less enjoyable.
In general I have to say that since homecoming has launched I have not changed my stance on this and I might be biased for this reason, however there has not been a single game involving Lockdown (which I have played) that I was able to enjoy even the slightest bit.
There is also (from my point of view) a certain asthetic to decks being structure around an archetype or idea and interactions with leader abilities (especially passive ones) so the idea of Lockdown is counterintuitive to that idea, leading to games, which appear to be zero-sum games in terms of enjoyment and Lockdown being the last blight on the game from the problems of early homecoming should in my opinion be addressed.
What is your opinion ?
Do you agree or do you disagree ?
Do you think that the game being heavily dumbed down (and bordering on auto-piloting) should be a mutual decision or not ?
Ever since Homecoming started Lockdown has existed in its current form.
The issue I take with Lockdown is the fact that matchups are turned binary with this leader ability, being heavily favored or (most of the time) heavily unfavored, furthermore the whole gamestate in games involving this leader ability are needlessly dumbed down, i.e. players have a lot less to take into consideration and to careful use one's leader ability, especially multiple charges leader abilities, which is then removed from the game.
My point is that games with Lockdown are inherently very simplified and needlessly close to being auto-pilot.
If we would have a leader ability "At the start of the match roll a 6-sided die, if you get a 5 or 6 you win the match, otherwise you lose the match" it would not be a balancing issue, after all the winrate of that leader ability would only be 1/3, so clearly it could not be an issue, right ?
Dumbing down the game is inherently a problematic concept, especially if it is 100% consistently in all games.
Just to clarify, control as a concept is completely different from what I am stating above, given that control as a gameplan relies on tools that are intended to trade evenly or even trade-up, Lockdown is an immediate trading of the leader abilities, leaving one player ahead (due to the deck structure and the leader provisions) and one player behind, without even making a move, trading cards and is not by itself something risky, like keeping a control tool for Round 3, which might find no value.
Beyond all that, I have to admit that Lockdown has sometimes been useful as a counter against certain meta decks, however in the end I (personally) disliked these metas even more afterwards, given that a game against Lockdown has (in my opinion) always been even less fun than playing against a Tier 1 deck you know you are going to lose against, so the response to certain toxic metas in the past has only made said metas even more toxic and even less enjoyable.
In general I have to say that since homecoming has launched I have not changed my stance on this and I might be biased for this reason, however there has not been a single game involving Lockdown (which I have played) that I was able to enjoy even the slightest bit.
There is also (from my point of view) a certain asthetic to decks being structure around an archetype or idea and interactions with leader abilities (especially passive ones) so the idea of Lockdown is counterintuitive to that idea, leading to games, which appear to be zero-sum games in terms of enjoyment and Lockdown being the last blight on the game from the problems of early homecoming should in my opinion be addressed.
What is your opinion ?
Do you agree or do you disagree ?
Do you think that the game being heavily dumbed down (and bordering on auto-piloting) should be a mutual decision or not ?