phahahaha, yeah, that was an annoying response
I'll leave that guy with superiority complex to enjoy himself and his easy wins.
wouldn't mind seeing mages have a rework lol
Attachments
-
1648600658546.png
And I actually like this deck. It is one good example how people use their brains to get value out of the cheapest of cards.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it the first time (and I lost). And then I lost a few more games to this deck... but after that you know its structure and can deal with it as soon as that first mage is dropped.
2 remarks:And I actually like this deck. It is one good example how people use their brains to get value out of the cheapest of cards.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it the first time (and I lost). And then I lost a few more games to this deck... but after that you know its structure and can deal with it as soon as that first mage is dropped.
First, is it normal/expected/desirable that low bronze can rise such values ?
If yes, then bring back old SK greatswords for example, nerf was not necessary...
Second point: yes IF and only IF you play a (heavy) control deck...
Not even heavy control, there is 8 meditating mages there, I feel hard to believe you can create a deck that can blow 8 diferente minions and win the round against all the other.
But how knows maybe I am realy sick of NR since I play main NG. I autoconcede all my matches since I see my oponent now.
One unfortunate recent addition to the list of toxic decks is ST Elven Deadeye. This deck has 2 of what I would define as "toxic" traits:
1.) far too strong a deck relative to the minimal skill level needed to play it, and
2.) difficult to counter (at least for many decks).
Most of the gold trigger instantly so there is little ability to interact with them, and unless you can remove Elven Deadeyes left and right, this deck is going to give you trouble. And it's so straightforward and easy to play. Why was this toxic deck given so much power in the recent patch?
1.) far too strong a deck relative to the minimal skill level needed to play it, and
2.) difficult to counter (at least for many decks).
Most of the gold trigger instantly so there is little ability to interact with them, and unless you can remove Elven Deadeyes left and right, this deck is going to give you trouble. And it's so straightforward and easy to play. Why was this toxic deck given so much power in the recent patch?
Your two "toxic traits" basically describe the concept of "meta."
Toxic for me its full controll, interactive deck
Madoc/traps/Tiger are some kind of example of it.
Madoc in any deck
Arachnas swarm focus in controll is another example.
Blood money with full controll
NG full locks and poisons.
I mean, i know we need to have controll, but those decks with a lot of controls and - most-no unit are toxic.
The rest for me are only meta boring decks
Madoc/traps/Tiger are some kind of example of it.
Madoc in any deck
Arachnas swarm focus in controll is another example.
Blood money with full controll
NG full locks and poisons.
I mean, i know we need to have controll, but those decks with a lot of controls and - most-no unit are toxic.
The rest for me are only meta boring decks
That's true to an extent, although I would argue that Syndicate meta decks require skill to play as do some NG and NR decks. But yeah the metas are certainly far too OP and allow inferior players to advance way too quickly.
Post automatically merged:
Agreed on all points. There needs to be a way to counter the deck. Otherwise the game is a pointless 1-way butt kicking with you on the receiving end.
And I would argue the gap between "skill" required to pilot Assimilate, Siege and Alumni AND Waylay Elves is so negligible, it can be considered nonexistent. The Syndicate "meta" decks of very recent times were no different, either, going all the way back to the Drill days. And the less said about the "skill" required to pilot Hyperthin/Mill/Clog decks the better.
I would also argue there is nothing particularly "toxic" about the Elves, but apparently our definitions of toxic are different.
I think I would argue that all of these decks require significant skill to pilot optimally. The real problem is that the difference between skilled play and unskilled play is negligible relative to the difference between cards. An unskilled player who draws well will typically defeat perfect play from an excellent player who draws poorly. An unskilled player with a deck full of powerful and synergistic cards will almost always defeat a much better player with a less well crafted deck. And with the ready availability of well crafted net decks, effective deck building is an unnecessary skill for a bad player.
My problem with the deadeye spawn is that it's so incredibly simplistic to play, despite being quite powerful. Almost up there with thrive decks in terms of simplicity. Play a bunch of cards to spawn deadeyes, play a few cards to damage your opponents with the spawned deadeyes, and then buff the deadeyes. Rinse, repeat. It's such a 1-dimensional strategy. At least NG requires knowledge of the opponent's deck, while SY requires management of the currency system, both of which are more sophisticated skills than spawning elves and spitting them back at the opponent.
The one thing I will agree with you on is that hyperthin, mill, and clog decks are complete trash.
Yes, but [even if that's true] simple to play and powerful doesn't equal "toxic." The Elves as an archetype did not change in terms of gameplay at all. It was always about setting up deadeyes and payoff with Verno. It was always about elf swarm and Isengrim finish. The Vanadain gambit did not change in terms of gameplay at all, since the card's introduction, either. Everything is still the same, except several cards received significant buffs, so suddenly Vanadain gambit doesn't completely suck. The buffs didn't suddenly make it "toxic." They just made it stronger. If Dwarves receive buff in the next patch and become "meta", that won't make the archetype "toxic" suddenly.
And on the other hand, hard(er) to play doesn't equal "wholesome", either.
Month after Month and nothing changes, one annoying OP Netdeck after the other, over and over and over again - this is insanity at its best. Do people really enjoy playing (against) these? There's no more tactical or strategial fun in it at all. With every Update it gets worse.
I think many would agree that a deck that allows inferior players to sail their way to pro could be deemed "toxic". After all, the whole point of a strategy game is to reward the most skilled players. If certain decks are preventing this from happening, they run counter to the entire notion of the game itself, which I would argue = toxicity. Yes I'm aware that the gameplay is the same, but the payoff is completely different which changes everything. You may have a different definition of "toxic" but it certainly doesn't make mine wrong.
Post automatically merged:
Netdecking sucks, I completely agree, although I don't see a way to effectively prevent it other than constantly changing tons of cards with each update (which could, in turn, threaten to throw off the balance of the game even more). It's a tough situation to address. The devs could certainly work towards more competitive balance though so the difference between the meta decks and tier 2-3 decks isn't quite as large. NG has been OP for far too long, and this could easily be addressed with a few quick nerfs.
Last edited:
I think it depends on the player's experience.
Last edited:
No, it doesn't make yours wrong, but your definition becomes either too vague or disingenuous, if you describe the entire meta by it, yet in the same sentence single out Waylays as "the" toxic deck of the day. In other words, if you are going to single out the Elves as the toxic deck, then the definition of toxic you base that claim on cannot in good conscience be "a deck that allows inferior players to sail their way to pro," because by that definition Alumni, Siege, Assimilate, Alchemy, Firesworn, and whatever else is currently in the meta are all "toxic," because guess what? ALL of those decks, built and optimized by top players "allow inferior players to sail their way to pro." All of them. That is what meta is and that is what meta does.
So to me, that definition doesn't work, either in this case, or in general, because I personally don't consider all of the meta - or all of the "decks that allow inferior players to sail to pro" - toxic. Personally, I prefer to differentiate between terms "Strong," "OP" and "toxic," even though sometimes the deck could fit more than one term.
And the point of a strategy game to reward the most skilled players is also not wrong, but it's a bit of a platitude. When has it actually applied to gwent? Gwent is about the DECKS, matchups, draws AND skill. Skill is effectively only about 25% of the equation here, if that. Not to mention, since it was already pointed out above, the skill required to pilot ALL of the meta decks is fairly even. That's why those decks are meta.
*You* are the one arguing that those other meta decks require little skill to achieve pro with, not me. In fact one of the other posters above also disagreed with you on this point, so it's pretty clear that this is your limited opinion and not fact. You seem to have a very high opinion of your own opinions, treating them as fact rather than what they are - simply your opinion, and perhaps a minority one at that.
