Should Lockdown get reworked

[InkognitoXI]

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 ?

 

[Iuliandrei]

Do you think that the game being heavily dumbed down

No, it's not and i think even you must know this is bs and you're only using it because you have no arguments, this is a long trend i've seen for years regarding many different games.
Regarding the binary matchups, again this isn't exclusive to lockdown, this leader isn't even part of the meta most of the time and you still have binary matchups. No issue you mention is exclusive to lockdown, hence the empty "dumbed down" argument.

Now, reflecting on this usefulness of this leader, its existence has been justified more in the past when we had extremely strong "play 2 cards in one turn" leaders. Right now it seems that leaders play a less impactful role so disabling leader ability might not be as beneficial as it used to be.
While it may appear kinda weird to have a tech leader i'm not sure why it should be reworked now.

edit: also your poll is garbage

 

[InkognitoXI]

No, it's not and i think even you must know this is bs and you're only using it because you have no arguments, this is a long trend i've seen for years regarding many different games.
[...]

So how is the game not being dumbed down by a whole mechanic just being removed and the game being reduced to playing out cards without anything beyond that to keep track of ?
I really do not see your argument here, if it would at the very least replace both leaders with some set ability it would not be dumbing it down, however just slapping down cards is definitely dumbed down from regular games.

[...]
Regarding the binary matchups, again this isn't exclusive to lockdown, this leader isn't even part of the meta most of the time and you still have binary matchups. No issue you mention is exclusive to lockdown, hence the empty "dumbed down" argument.
[...]

I never claimed the issues to be exclusive to Lockdown, I claimed the issues to be inherent to Lockdown, something that is in general not true for the game.
Also my "dumbed down" argument comes from the fact that all the leader does is to remove decision making, relative to every other choice in the game.

[...]
Now, reflecting on this usefulness of this leader, its existence has been justified more in the past when we had extremely strong "play 2 cards in one turn" leaders. Right now it seems that leaders play a less impactful role so disabling leader ability might not be as beneficial as it used to be.
[...]

I stated that it appear in certain metas due to being an anti-meta choice, my argument was that Lockdown resulted in an even more toxic meta.

[...]
edit: also your poll is garbage

By that I take it you would have prefered another option, which already exists in "Else, elaborate below" ?

 

[Draconifors]

When the "no" option in a poll clearly ridicules anyone choosing it... seems to be a common thing in threads that are basically just hating on X. Which is funny, because it immediately undermines the OP and their points/arguments.

Lockdown is fine, always has been. It's had its fair share of haters ever since October 2018 but its ability has never been changed. It's also the only exact copy of a Witcher 3 gwent leader ability, which makes it unique.

Also my "dumbed down" argument comes from the fact that all the leader does is to remove decision making, relative to every other choice in the game.

Nope. Lockdown is not dumbing down. It might even do the opposite for opponents, forcing them to pilot their deck without relying on their Leader -- which means the very thing you claim Lockdown removes, decision making.

With the garbage Provisions that Lockdown provides it adds challenge to deckbuilding, not to mention it gives exactly zero direct benefit to its player. But that's a fair price to pay for forcing opponents to alter their strategies (even if they're Nilfgaard with Damien, since they'll only have one Leader use).

I've been playing Lockdown for over two years now; I'm biased, but I also know exactly what it is like to play it and why it does not need an overhaul. Not that I think it would get one anyway, since clearly the REDs don't see a problem with it despite over two years of hate towards the ability.

 

[InkognitoXI]

When the "no" option in a poll clearly ridicules anyone choosing it... seems to be a common thing in threads that are basically just hating on X. Which is funny, because it immediately undermines the OP and their points/arguments.
[...]

You might be right on that one, I added an alternative "No" option, sadly I cannot remove the previous answer, however anyone should be able to just switch to that answer.

[]
Lockdown is fine, always has been. It's had its fair share of haters ever since October 2018 but its ability has never been changed. It's also the only exact copy of a Witcher 3 gwent leader ability, which makes it unique.
[...]

Card Advantage Spies were also a Witcher 3 thing and they clearly have been toxic for the game, so much in fact that they were cut when Homecoming launched, given that no matter the adjustments they were just inherently unhealthy for the game.

[...]
Nope. Lockdown is not dumbing down. It might even do the opposite for opponents, forcing them to pilot their deck without relying on their Leader -- which means the very thing you claim Lockdown removes, decision making.
[...]

While still stricly cutting down the options for playing around control tools by not allowing anything but playing a card out of one's hand, the one thing homecoming changed, which is why (in my opinion) the leader ability contradicts the new game layout of homecoming.

[...]
With the garbage Provisions that Lockdown provides it adds challenge to deckbuilding, not to mention it gives exactly zero direct benefit to its player. But that's a fair price to pay for forcing opponents to alter their strategies (even if they're Nilfgaard with Damien, since they'll only have one Leader use).
[...]

I never claimed the ability to be unbalanced, my issue with the ability is that it is simply "unfunny" by cutting down on decision paths and reducing over all combinations of plays, without replacing them with something, again if Lockdown would overwrite both leader abilities with something unsynergistic that would allow more combinations and thus more decision making then I would have no issue with the ability itself.
One option would be to give the ability 5 different equally strong options and each player picks one option for their opponent to make sure that it synergises as little as possible with their strategy.

[...]
I've been playing Lockdown for over two years now; I'm biased, but I also know exactly what it is like to play it and why it does not need an overhaul. Not that I think it would get one anyway, since clearly the REDs don't see a problem with it despite over two years of hate towards the ability.

I do not think it will go away either, however I wanted to do this thread and discuss this topic for a while now.
By the way I also thought they would refuse to give up on leaders that play multiple cards, like with Card Advantage Spies in the Open Beta.
To be fair, I am also biased, given that this whole topic is about something abstract, rather than a balancing issue.

 

[Draconifors]

Card Advantage Spies were also a Witcher 3 thing

Which has nothing to do with Lockdown. I specifically used the term "leader ability".
Besides, CA spies in Witcher 3 drew two cards (and there was a 0-point one!), silver spies only one and there was a decision involved every time. So, not even identical.

While still stricly cutting down the options for playing around control tools by not allowing anything but playing a card out of one's hand, the one thing homecoming changed, which is why (in my opinion) the leader ability contradicts the new game layout of homecoming.

Lockdown is the one exception to the rule, the thing you always need to be prepared for and that forces especially autopilot decks to change their strategy (always a good thing). It also keeps super strong stuff like early-day Hidden Cache or Shield Wall in check. Besides, it in itself is a control tool, which fits a control faction like Nilfgaard.
(It was quite fitting that the ability was tied to Usurper rather than one of the rightful rulers.)


This topic has been done so many times, and always with the same arguments, that I'm done.

 

[OuterSpaceDoggo]

I voted yes, while I fear it may be on the broken side, I would rework it like this:

"On game start, disable the enemy Leader for the duration of the battle.
Order: Lock an enemy unit and damage it by 1. Charge: 2 " -> Still provision 10

So essentially making lockdown and imprisonment a single ability while maintaining the provision.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Which has nothing to do with Lockdown. I specifically used the term "leader ability".
Besides, CA spies in Witcher 3 drew two cards (and there was a 0-point one!), silver spies only one and there was a decision involved every time. So, not even identical.
[...]

My point was that some of the concepts imported from the Witcher 3 were unhealthy for the game and Silver Spies (despite drawing 1 card less and having considerably more base strength) were still unhealthy for the game.

[...]
Lockdown is the one exception to the rule, the thing you always need to be prepared for and that forces especially autopilot decks to change their strategy (always a good thing).
[...]

You might have a point there, although that does not change the fact that it still strictly reduces options for all matchups, resulting in a strictly less complex game for decks, which do not depend as much on their leader ability (e.g. SK Warrior).

I voted yes, while I fear it may be on the broken side, I would rework it like this:

"On game start, disable the enemy Leader for the duration of the battle.
Order: Lock an enemy unit and damage it by 1. Charge: 2 " -> Still provision 10

So essentially making lockdown and imprisonment a single ability while maintaining the provision.

Um, would that not be incredibly unbalanced, taking away the opponent's leader, while still keeping an own leader ability ?
At that point you trade up that entire leader ability for 4-6 provisions, which should honestly be extremely overpowered.

 

[EduFerraz]

For me you answer all the problem here.

"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. "

I agree, the one who doenst use lockdown starts in disvantage, specially in some kind of decks.

Lets take an example the ursine ritual/lippy deck. A lot of ppl use the charges 2 times in cery and 3 times in Vildkaarl and almost dont have self damage cards. So this deck its unplayable agaisnt lockdown.

Hidden cache has the same problem. A lot of decks doenst havee too much cards wich gives coins because they have the leader abillity. Also, the hoards cost 2 coins less, and without that it is almost unplayable too.

I think we have other examples of this

So one of thee players build his deck thinking in the achetype of his leader, and the other only have cards wich sinergys betwen than.

So yes, i agree, lockdown should be changed, because its unbalance and unfair

 

[ReaperTek]

Personally I hate playing it or to play against it, but I think it's a necessary evil as a counter action whenever a overtuned Leader or leader interaction appears (DJ townsfolk is probably the prime example), let's face it if all the Leader Skills would be on the same power level and didn't instant enable moves that usually need 2 turns or a build up (for example OH - Deathwish units, PF - Champions Charge or Inspired Zeal - Commandos) no one apart from maybe some players who want to troll the opponent would even consider using Lockdown and that would probably be the time they could rework it.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Also my "dumbed down" argument comes from the fact that all the leader does is to remove decision making, relative to every other choice in the game.

It doesn't remove decision making, it forces the opponent to adjust their strategy.
What's dumb is that most people just copy a deck off the internet and then play each card accord to the guide, there is little decision involved in that. In this case the real choice is when you're faced with a situation you can't play your deck step-by-step and you need to improvise, use your resources differently.
Anyway this whole post seems to be based on you not understanding what complexity is.

 

[DustLoopV]

Lockdown was great when I wad first starting out because I didn't have many cards and was learning the game so not having to deal with leader abilities and crazy combos was nice.

I wish there was 9 or less provision card to deal with artifacts so I can use my lockdown ciri nova deck a little better

 

[quintivarium]

I voted yes, but for different reasons. The only value a power like lockdown has to the game is it’s ability to force players not to be overly reliant on one card or one power in a game. But if that is the case, it needs to be available to all factions — not just one.

And I do think it is imbalanced — not overpowered, but imbalanced in that it has far more impact upon certain opposing leader powers than others. Certain powers like ursine ritual or precision strike are very weak in themselves — they acquire value only through synergy with certain cards, and often these cards only really have value because of synergies with leaders. To avoid extensive use of lockdown shutting out more decks than it encourages, these leader powers would need to change as well.

 

[DRK3]

During the early times of Gwent HC, i wasnt a fan of Lockdown, in fact it was one of the last NG Masteries i did. But my perspective of it changed, particularly during the expansion releases, where the meta changes so much...

We are now 5 expansions into HC, soon to be 6. And with each new one, the added cards and abilities tend to be too strong, which wouldnt be a problem if they were quickly fixed with balance patches and hotfixes, but that doesnt seem to be the dev team's M.O.
This happens everytime, so i have to assume its not just an error in design but deliberate, to entice players to get and play the new cards.

Then comes in Lockdown. The necessary Evil, like @OneWhoCravesSouls mentioned. It put a lot of broken, OP decks in check, a lot of decks that would be tier 0 but were tier 1 because they could be countered thanks to lockdown.
In a perfect world, Lockdown wouldnt be needed, but with what we have, i think we would be worse without it.

Also, yes, Lockdown destroys decks like Lippy Cerys, that completely rely on leader. Is this unfair? Absolutely not. The POPULAR versions of those decks are greedy versions that dont include cards to replace the leader charges, because they're optimization didnt consider Lockdown as its only 1 of 42 leader abilities.
It would only be unfair if there were no cards to do the same thing as the leader, but that's not the case.

So yeah, again Lockdown, bringing the balance and teaching you shouldnt rely completely on your leader.

 

[Guest 4375874]

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 ?

Here comes the NG pitchforks lol For whatever reason ppl think reworking something means "weakening" or that it won't make the overall game better because that one faction is all that matters. And all faction players are guilty of that to some extent. Incapable of thinking about the state of the game as a whole.....ANYHOW

I do agree....but also don't

I think the ability can remain the same, but change duration and how it's activated...this would be for all leader abilities mind you, not just lockdown. Yes it's controversial but not new or unheard of. I think the game has teetered too much towards binary play as you have pointed out and the leader abilities are a huge part of it. I've had this discussions with others here about "conditional" play and I think it should more than anything apply to leaders.

1. Requires playing specific faction cards as a condition to activate leader ability
2. Only lasts one turn. I don't think there should be any leader ability that lasts the entire duration of the match. Effects like token spawning (natures gift etc) I think are fine but honestly I think these should be card effects not leaders. e.g. a trap card or special card
3. I don't know, I'm figuring this out as I go lol

Post automatically merged: Nov 13, 2020

So yeah, again Lockdown, bringing the balance and teaching you shouldnt rely completely on your leader.

It's not balance if only one faction has it now is it? lol That's dependency. If anything it encourages the devs to keep putting out these ridiculously broken cards and mechanics

 

[Jamborinio]

For me you answer all the problem here.

"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. "

I agree, the one who doenst use lockdown starts in disvantage, specially in some kind of decks.

Lets take an example the ursine ritual/lippy deck. A lot of ppl use the charges 2 times in cery and 3 times in Vildkaarl and almost dont have self damage cards. So this deck its unplayable agaisnt lockdown.

Hidden cache has the same problem. A lot of decks doenst havee too much cards wich gives coins because they have the leader abillity. Also, the hoards cost 2 coins less, and without that it is almost unplayable too.

I think we have other examples of this

So one of thee players build his deck thinking in the achetype of his leader, and the other only have cards wich sinergys betwen than.

So yes, i agree, lockdown should be changed, because its unbalance and unfair

This is quite good evidence to suggest a bit of a problem. If it can do relatively little to some decks, yet completely 'lockdown' others, then perhaps it is a little too binary.

 

[EduFerraz]

Here comes the NG pitchforks lol For whatever reason ppl think reworking something means "weakening" or that it won't make the overall game better because that one faction is all that matters. And all faction players are guilty of that to some extent. Incapable of thinking about the state of the game as a whole.....ANYHOW

I do agree....but also don't

I think the ability can remain the same, but change duration and how it's activated...this would be for all leader abilities mind you, not just lockdown. Yes it's controversial but not new or unheard of. I think the game has teetered too much towards binary play as you have pointed out and the leader abilities are a huge part of it. I've had this discussions with others here about "conditional" play and I think it should more than anything apply to leaders.

1. Requires playing specific faction cards as a condition to activate leader ability
2. Only lasts one turn. I don't think there should be any leader ability that lasts the entire duration of the match. Effects like token spawning (natures gift etc) I think are fine but honestly I think these should be card effects not leaders. e.g. a trap card or special card
3. I don't know, I'm figuring this out as I go lol

Post automatically merged: Nov 13, 2020

It's not balance if only one faction has it now is it? lol That's dependency. If anything it encourages the devs to keep putting out these ridiculously broken cards and mechanics

The problem is, The most affect leaders by lockdown arent so top tier.

As example, ursine ritual and hidden cache.

Its almost impossible to play agaist lockdown. Everytime i AM with those leaders o Just forfeit against lockdown.

So to "combate" top tiers they created a leader that kill other leaders decks

 

[Markus_Wirth]

NG is the worst fraction in current meta.

Lockdown can hit decks like Ursine Ritual or Hidden Cache but other leader abilities are not that hurt. Also it´s not even the strongest NG deck and has the lowest provision boost.

The whole idea of the NG fraction is interacting with your opponents deck strategy and Lockdown fits perfectly to this characteristic.

So please let it as it is.

 

[ya1]

"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"

That's already pretty much the case in Gwent.

Also it´s not even the strongest NG deck and has the lowest provision boost.

If you count Affan's cost into the wholesome full 11 point value of Formation, Formation is also kinda 11 prov...

More on topic, Lockdown should be buffed, maybe. Leader synergies are too strong. Espiecially the [...] brick-or-win Ursine decks.

 

[Slizzl]

The problem is, The most affect leaders by lockdown arent so top tier.

As example, ursine ritual and hidden cache.

Its almost impossible to play agaist lockdown. Everytime i AM with those leaders o Just forfeit against lockdown.

So to "combate" top tiers they created a leader that kill other leaders decks

Let's just pretend Hidden Cache can't earn money without leader or Ursine Ritual doesn't have ANY ways to self-damage without theirs. Maybe you'd have a chance to win if you didn't instantly forfeit.
Lockdown doesn't have points now that Double Ball is gone, people really shouldn't lose against it. Maybe re-evaluate your gameplan.