Suggestion: Reduce binariness and RNG. It's not healthy.

+
It's not only about Professional and it doesn't matter if the effect is conditional or not. It's about the binariness of the effect. A destroy effect is binary, just like artifact removal. Getting rid of destroy effects will not make the game less interesting imo. It will make it more interesting, because people will have to strategize more and tech their decks to deal with boosts.

The comparison does not work. Artifacts are engines that you can not interact with at all outside of artifact removal which just destroys them if you have it. I agree that is bad design. A regular removal card having a destroy effect is not the same thing. I don't see what your big issue is with destroy effects other than you really don't want huge cards to get countered. Why is it that you think a 50 point card should be able to sit around and not have any threat to it? That just creates a new problem. As the moderator pointed out and I have pointed out many times your 3 point damage by 8 card is just as "binary" as destroy effect cards if not more.
 
Maybe check the posts above before writing something? If a unit gets boosted to 30, someone has made a significant investment (multiple cards) to do this. It is therefore deserved that removal may take a bit more effort than lazy one-shot Geralt. Like a reset and then damage for example.

Reset and dmg would not make sense in most of the cases, take Ozzrel - not much of a set up required there (1 unit in the graveyard and woody's ability) to get it over 20 str, and it just can be reseted to 1 with one card. Why would anyone take another 8 dmg card if reseting did the job and took away 20+ points? People will just get yrden and spores cards instead of geralt or geralt pro and you would have the same issue with the reseting cards as you do now with the destroying ones.
 
Why would anyone take another 8 dmg card if reseting did the job and took away 20+ points?
Because Ozzrel is not the only card in the game.
Post automatically merged:

The comparison does not work. Artifacts are engines that you can not interact with at all outside of artifact removal which just destroys them if you have it. I agree that is bad design. A regular removal card having a destroy effect is not the same thing. I don't see what your big issue is with destroy effects other than you really don't want huge cards to get countered. Why is it that you think a 50 point card should be able to sit around and not have any threat to it? That just creates a new problem. As the moderator pointed out and I have pointed out many times your 3 point damage by 8 card is just as "binary" as destroy effect cards if not more.
Well, imo, the destroy effect is binary because the target unit goes from existing to non-existing, with no other options (damage) possible. Leaving the “binary” out of it, I can simply state that destroy effects are not healthy and fun. I don’t find it very strategic if you can just one-shot everything. Taking the 50 point card example, yes, this card should be able for a large extend to sit around and have little threats, that’s why it’s 50 points! It makes no sense that such a big unit is so easy to kill. Only a few rare cards should be able to do that instantly (like Scorch). If someone puts so much effort in boosting a unit, then a counter should need some effort as well. A reset is actually quite simple, but it seems some people here find even that too much work and want everything at once by destroying a unit. The ping-pong gambling effect, now-you-have-a-unit-now-you-don't. And that’s part of the current issue with all the high removal.
 
Last edited:
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
People just want to be safe to endlessly boost their unit, and just have 5-8 hits against it. I understand those guys, it's perfectly fine. But it should not be without risk, if it was it would ruin the game.

If anything, perhaps the Geralt card should be from 10 and upwards instead of 8. Anyways, the Geralt card fits the game well. Anyone who has played Witcher 3 knows it's perfectly logical as well, not just necessary for the game.
 
People just want to be safe to endlessly boost their unit, and just have 5-8 hits against it. I understand those guys, it's perfectly fine. But it should not be without risk, if it was it would ruin the game.

If anything, perhaps the Geralt card should be from 10 and upwards instead of 8. Anyways, the Geralt card fits the game well. Anyone who has played Witcher 3 knows it's perfectly logical as well, not just necessary for the game.
Perfectly logical, really? I have played Witcher 3. How many points has Unseen Elder do you think? Did Geralt one-shot him as well?
 
Geralt is a monster killer. Nobody said anything about oneshot. If you think things in this game represent oneshot in a 3d game, then you're very wrong.

I oneshot a boat with an Aedirnian Mauler the other day.
 
Because Ozzrel is not the only card in the game.

Indeed, however all the cards that are being boosted to 20+ are low str cards. Will it really help you much if instead of being destroyed by 11 provision Geralt pro your heavily boosted card will be reset by 4 provision spores?
 
Different game, different rules. Anyhow, lore inconsistencies is a different subject that has little to do with balancing or reducing "binariness".
True.
Indeed, however all the cards that are being boosted to 20+ are low str cards. Will it really help you much if instead of being destroyed by 11 provision Geralt pro your heavily boosted card will be reset by 4 provision spores?
Of course it helps and makes the game more interesting: Reset does not destroy the unit, saving some points and allowing further interaction with the unit. A boost should give protection and reduce the risk of getting destroyed by one card. These destroy cards establish the opposite. Again, too much removal.
 
Indeed, however all the cards that are being boosted to 20+ are low str cards. Will it really help you much if instead of being destroyed by 11 provision Geralt pro your heavily boosted card will be reset by 4 provision spores?

Who brings 4 provision spores? And yes, it makes sense. Just boosting is a stupid strategy.
 
Because Ozzrel is not the only card in the game.
Post automatically merged:

Well, imo, the destroy effect is binary because the target unit goes from existing to non-existing, with no other options (damage) possible. Leaving the “binary” out of it, I can simply state that destroy effects are not healthy and fun.

There are the same amount options with a card like professional than your strict damage by 8 card. I respect that you don't like destroy effects but I do not share your opinion in regards to not healthy and fun. Destroy effects serve a purpoe and are more interesting IMO.

I don’t find it very strategic if you can just one-shot everything. Taking the 50 point card example, yes, this card should be able for a large extend to sit around and have little threats, that’s why it’s 50 points! It makes no sense that such a big unit is so easy to kill. Only a few rare cards should be able to do that instantly (like Scorch). If someone puts so much effort in boosting a unit, then a counter should need some effort as well. A reset is actually quite simple, but it seems some people here find even that too much work and want everything at once by destroying a unit. The ping-pong gambling effect, now-you-have-a-unit-now-you-don't. And that’s part of the current issue with all the high removal.

Except with the cards I have discussed with you, you can't just one shot everything. Scorch only hits the biggest unit and you have to play around hitting your own units. Professional only eliminates a multiple of 3. I am defending the more strategic cards here.

Boost and immune would be OP in the game you are envisioning. Not to mention top engine cards would be too powerful as well.
 
Who brings 4 provision spores? And yes, it makes sense. Just boosting is a stupid strategy.

If cards like geralt will do limited damage, like it was proposed in this post, lots of decks will take alternatives such as reseting cards because there are much more units that are boosted to high numbers than simply strong ones (like speartip or tibor).
What would you rather have in your deck in when facing cards like ozzrel, ghoul, hubert or dagur - a 10 provision 3 str card that does 8 dmg or a 4-6 provisions reseting card?
 
For me it's not the binaries as such, it's more the fact Yrden is specifically good against perhaps 2 or 3 decks, but useless against a lot more. It's an expensive card to include for no value, when you had no way of controlling that. Same with teh big power killers. The issue I have is you're going in blind at the start. It's never going to happen, but I always feel you should be allowed to choose if you play or not.

FIFA is an example - don't like you matchup? You can quit before kickoff and don't get punished with a loss. Same here, I think, there should be an option to leave if you don't want to face, say, Usurper!
 
FIFA is an example - don't like you matchup? You can quit before kickoff and don't get punished with a loss. Same here, I think, there should be an option to leave if you don't want to face, say, Usurper!

Don't you think it would be too much? Lets say i have an engine deck that is great against monsters but weaker against control decks. So i will quit every time i see a possible control deck, and the monster guys will probably quit when facing an obvious engine deck, we all will be playing catch and not gwent.
 
If cards like geralt will do limited damage, like it was proposed in this post, lots of decks will take alternatives such as reseting cards because there are much more units that are boosted to high numbers than simply strong ones (like speartip or tibor).
What would you rather have in your deck in when facing cards like ozzrel, ghoul, hubert or dagur - a 10 provision 3 str card that does 8 dmg or a 4-6 provisions reseting card?

Why would anyone bother bringing Geralt if he does 8 damage on a 45 unit?
Post automatically merged:

Don't you think it would be too much? Lets say i have an engine deck that is great against monsters but weaker against control decks. So i will quit every time i see a possible control deck, and the monster guys will probably quit when facing an obvious engine deck, we all will be playing catch and not gwent.

In real football if you forfeit, you not only loose the match, but you loose 0-3 in addition.

Letting people leave whatever matches they want would be a bad decision. Forfeit is already bad enough. With such a rule, you could just make a deck for only 1 type of opponent.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone bother bringing Geralt if he does 8 damage on a 45 unit?

My point exactly. The cards would be dead. Thats why there is no reason to change the current "destroy" ability of such cards imo.
 
Don't you think it would be too much? Lets say i have an engine deck that is great against monsters but weaker against control decks. So i will quit every time i see a possible control deck, and the monster guys will probably quit when facing an obvious engine deck, we all will be playing catch and not gwent.

Yeah, maybe, like I keep saying I don't think I have the answers, else I'd have an online card game company!!! I'm just trying to offer my more outsider-ish view of the game, and where it could improve.

I had to uninstall it for a break, started to get really angry at facing the same one or two decks. Mainly I am sick to the goddam back teeth of this boring a.f. Skellige deck. It's SOOOOOOOOO dull and repetitive. More than ANY other deck, because once Lippy gets played you're literally playing against the exact same cards!!

Honestly, I may not be an expert at these games, but even an idiot (like me!) can see what a bad idea Lippy is. It's Xavier Lemmens from the first release, but in reverse. I.e. completely broken. As I've said before, CDPR must really, really like Scotland, their love-in for SK is absurd. Coral's pretty close in terms of being utterly OP.
 
Top Bottom