Should Lockdown get reworked

[quintivarium]

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.

You miss the point — lockdown disproportionately affects what are usually weaker but more flavorful and iconic leader abilities. Let me give you an example. My most fun deck is a high-tempo, point-slammy Fruits of Ysgith deck. I absolutely depend upon the leader for two things: a bit of extra boost almost every turn, and a tool to play griffins, fleders, and predatory dives. Giving up the former makes a very reasonable demand on me to adapt my strategy and a fair trade-off for you giving up a leader ability even though your sacrifice is planned. But there is no compensating for the latter. My deck now automatically contains 6 bricks (maybe five on rare occasions where favorable draws/coin flips still allow me value from a predatory dive), and my deck is no longer the surprisingly strategic and consistent deck I love, but is reduced to a binary matter of whether or not I can mulligan bricks without drawing other bricks.

And don’t try to tell me I have other options for cheap units to sacrifice. I do, but every one of them gives up consistency (one thing I love about the deck is that every card almost always has value), tremendous tempo (effectively one turn every time I hope to play any of the six aforementioned cards) and some pointslam. I could change the deck further to make better use of low tempo cards, but it ceases to be the same deck. And don’t whine about all the provisions you give up to play Lockdown — you give up one more than I do.

I don’t want to sound like someone upset because my pet deck is adversely affected by a power. Honestly, pointslam monsters matches up pretty well against any control based NG deck. I win more lockdown matchups than I lose. I toss it out as (for me) the most familiar of many possible decks against which lockdown has disproportionate effect.

And finally, don’t ever justify a power by crying about how weak poor Nilfgaard is — a bad card or power in a weak faction is still a bad card. I certainly stand with those who want to see Nilfgaard thrive with a balanced cards and interesting archetypes. But all binary and meta-narrowing cards/abilities need to change.

 

[InkognitoXI]

[...]
Anyway this whole post seems to be based on you not understanding what complexity is.

It looks to me like the opposite, however this can easily be resolved.
Give me your definition of complexity and preferably a mathematical one.

 

[Markus_Wirth]

That's already pretty much the case in Gwent.



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.

When you take into account Pro Rank Season of the Dryad statistics:
1) NG Enslave (Winrate 48,69 percent, Playrate 2,5 per cent)
2) NG Lockdown (Winrate 48 percent, Playrate 4,12 per cent)

Probably, there are other NG leaders who desperately need a buff. But Lockdown definitely does NOT need a nerf,

The whole problem with NG is that if you don´t play a poison/block double ball strategy your overall success heavily depends on your opponent deck. Many other strategies like SC Nature Gift, SK Ursine Ritual, SY firesworn and hidden cache, MO Thrive, NR shieldwall and Vysagotta + Dandelion and so on are decks which build up an engine.

Many NG strategies are completely different. If you play assimilate you build an assimilate engine but also hope that the targets of the cards not in your hand are valuable. Same for spies. Also holds for destroy and attack the opponents deck. Cahyr will collapse if your opponent does not have a self-boost strategy. And lockdown will have limited value if the leader ability is not crucial for your opponent.

Of course you can argue that you can play strategies with NG which are not so much dependent on your opponent deck:
1) Soldier swarm with Daerlian soldier -> Must hope for a long round 3 with the right cards in hand
2) Hyperthin -> difficult to have the relevant cards in your deck to benefit from reveal

=> What I really hope for future expansions that the whole soldier deck gets more competitive. When I think about NG I think about a well-organized army and not necessarily on spies, aristocrats and so on.
=> The whole challenge might be how to best synthesize soldiers with the whole NG benefit from other deck idea. There should be maybe a new leader who deals 1 damage to a random opponent unit whenever you play a soldier.

 

[Iuliandrei]

It looks to me like the opposite, however this can easily be resolved.
Give me your definition of complexity and preferably a mathematical one.

I should say more accurately the purpose of complexity. You seem to believe that the more elements are involved in a particular scenario automatically it adds depth and choice. It's not the case, complexity is a tool, not goal and you have a very simplistic view, more elements = good, less elements = dumb. Do you think Kambi is also dumbing down the game because you play only 9 card in the round instead of 10?

 

[InkognitoXI]

I should say more accurately the purpose of complexity. You seem to believe that the more elements are involved in a particular scenario automatically it adds depth and choice.
[...]

I never stated that complexity is the sole end goal.
I stated that a decrease in the number of non-identical paths is either neutral or negative for the sake of decision making, resulting in a negative expectation value for the change, thus a loss in complexity is on its own negative (although admittedly by itself a negative change of relative impact).
Also I never stated that it automatically adds depth and choice, it does in some cases (e.g. Imperial Formation or commiting leader charges in earlier rounds for multi-charge leaders) and does not in other cases, however it does not decrease choice, so the overall effect is positive in that regard.

[....]
It's not the case, complexity is a tool, not goal and you have a very simplistic view, more elements = good, less elements = dumb.
[...]

The hilarious part is that you first stated I would not understand what complexity is, now that this argument falls flat you start to argue whether complexity is desirable, which is completely different from your initial statement that I would not understand what complexity is.
I guess that is one way to dodge the question.
Also you seem to confuse complexity with difficulty.

[...]
Do you think Kambi is also dumbing down the game because you play only 9 card in the round instead of 10?

Kambi is different as it only removes the final piece, thus not reducing the overall number of paths so the comparison makes no sense.
From the standpoint of combinatorics you only have one choice for the final move anyways, furthermore Kambi is something one can account for, which in fact increases depth if one can see it coming and otherwise remains neutral in that regard.

 

[Iuliandrei]

I never stated that complexity is the sole end goal.

I never stated that you stated that. Let's leave aside this word play, you very well know that is the message you conveyed with your post, even reinforced by the structure of your poll, just in case there was any doubt.

The hilarious part is that you first stated I would not understand what complexity is, now that this argument falls flat you start to argue whether complexity is desirable, which is completely different from your initial statement that I would not understand what complexity is.

And you probably still don't, everything you wrote in your original post supports my assessment, just that i realized shortly after posting that what matter more is the purpose. I already explain how Lockdown doesn't reduce depth and incentivizes opponents to make different choices. This has nothing to do with difficulty, and it feels you pulled this out of thin air.

Kambi is different as it only removes the final piece, thus not reducing the overall number of paths so the comparison makes no sense.

Might not make sense to you but in essence it still removes a piece which according to you it "simplifies" the game, this is what you complained about, simplification, the reduction of pieces. Consideration for the amount of decision making is completely absent from your original post.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Moderator: That's quite enough skirmishing. Now, back to actual topic of the thread, please.

 

[mert41994]

You have to be simple like that, I can totally agree about the card game requires more complex structures to be balanced, but as a newcomer, it can be hell. For example, I like playing CCG's but never attended to play Magic, because it's too complex.

Playing a lockdown is really hard, you have only +10 provisions, it's the lowest one. That means you have to build your deck harder than the others. Also, you haven't any ability either. That means you can't make any combo too. That's huge.
If you ask me, abilities like Lockdown seems really bad but Lockdown balances the meta silently. Some decks build on their leader abilities, for example, Blue Stripes Draug deck. That build is nothing without the Zeal charges. Because these units are really fragile and if they can't use their orders, you can destroy your opponent. Also against the Ursine Ritual decks, for example, they're playing some of the berserk units without any self damagers instead of leader ability, against lockdown this deck has only one play against it, surrender.

Without Lockdown ability, we could see so many broken decks that we can't see right now. In the future, if a deck brokes the meta with their leader ability, some of the players will build a Lockdown deck to easily win against them, after that they have to build their deck better etc..

 

[Guest 4375874]

You have to be simple like that, I can totally agree about the card game requires more complex structures to be balanced, but as a newcomer, it can be hell. For example, I like playing CCG's but never attended to play Magic, because it's too complex.

Playing a lockdown is really hard, you have only +10 provisions, it's the lowest one. That means you have to build your deck harder than the others. Also, you haven't any ability either. That means you can't make any combo too. That's huge.
If you ask me, abilities like Lockdown seems really bad but Lockdown balances the meta silently. Some decks build on their leader abilities, for example, Blue Stripes Draug deck. That build is nothing without the Zeal charges. Because these units are really fragile and if they can't use their orders, you can destroy your opponent. Also against the Ursine Ritual decks, for example, they're playing some of the berserk units without any self damagers instead of leader ability, against lockdown this deck has only one play against it, surrender.

Without Lockdown ability, we could see so many broken decks that we can't see right now. In the future, if a deck brokes the meta with their leader ability, some of the players will build a Lockdown deck to easily win against them, after that they have to build their deck better etc..

And then that lockdown deck BECOMES the meta that ppl have to tech against in order to counter. That is not a solution for balancing a game. No one deck or faction should be a counter for everything else, that's poor game design.

 

[Slizzl]

And then that lockdown deck BECOMES the meta that ppl have to tech against in order to counter. That is not a solution for balancing a game. No one deck or faction should be a counter for everything else, that's poor game design.

I don't see Lockdown ever becoming a meta deck. Even if shutting down leaders somehow becomes essential it still gets countered the moment you face another NG leader since they can simply play a similar deck with way more provisions.

 

[Markus_Wirth]

Did anyone of you use Damien de la Tour in a Lockdown deck?

Probably, his order will be useless. Maybe this would be a great idea.
So new Lockdown:

Lockdown:
At game start your lead ability is locked.
If ability is locked: On game start, disable the enemy Leader for the duration of the battle.
If ability is not locked: Order: Deal damage according to the strength of your strongest allied soldier and reenable your opponent´s leader ability

Maybe the provision boost must be even lower to keep it balanced. But like the idea to give the soldier archetype a boost at NG.

 

[Etoclas]

Only played Lockdown since I started playing again 3 weeks ago.
It's simply fantastic and it's balanced for the 10 provision points it gives.

At least for me.