Jobs Support Register

Why do we need immune golds back. Constructively. A zero negativity thread.

+
Status
Not open for further replies.

Guest 4021160

Guest
#1
Why do we need immune golds back. Constructively. A zero negativity thread.

I read it all people and I've put it all here. In one place.Simply and with reasoning. You will not find "I have an urge everyone else can plough off" shenanigans on my part, I hope you'll follow my example.


1. The reasoning behind the change to quote Luigi from the stream "you draw alzurs thunder on the 3rd round to opponents gold feels like no luck" is not substantial.
There are thousands of thousands scenarios where luck is a deciding factor. Here's three (haha):
Example A: drawing witch hunter to a redanian knight.
Example B: depending on a whale to jump on the right row.
Example C: Drawing a weather bronze when you have aretuza's adept or wild hunt hound in hand.
2. Game has no more tactical approach to it.
Example A: vilentretenmerth can be answered anytime, it doesn't push your opponent to do extra.
Example B: YenCon damage was good because it aligns for multiple scorch. When I used to place her I used to count how many turns it will take before a viable scorch appears. If I took 1 turn too many, I would scorch myself. see? tactics.
Example C: Letho has no value defensively.
Example D: Placing Gold to the left of Skellige Storm.
3. People are forced to play full in offensively or defensively only. There's no middle ground game.
It's either "armor up bois" or "hahaha". I know you know what I mean!
4. A perfectly sensible bronze/silver/gold system will require another year for balancing.
Any major game has 3 tier system.
For example chess:
Tier 1: Queen (worth 11 pawns), rook (worth 5 pawns)
Tier 2. Bishop and Knight (worth 3 pawns)
Tier 3: Pawns
Gwent has 2 tiers at the moment.
5. Restrictions are good. I would put more of them rather then removing them.
It adds to the depth of the game. Again learn from chess. The game is immortal.
Here's a question for you:
why is the corner knight less in value than the centre one.
Here's another question for you:
do you need to place your knight in the corner to achieve smothered mate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

partci

User
#2
Especially Golds with long running effect must be way better "guarded", or if not, their effect maximized like: buff/damage by 2 instead of 1, DeatWish 4 instead 2. We have Bronze cards that can deal insane amount of damage in one turn (DP Trappers, for example) and you are having two or three of those in your deck, but Borkh, Triss:Butt and Yen:Con (of which you have just one miserable copy) need ton of turns to generate a decent value and are even more vulnerable than the said Bronzes. And those were Gold cards that were navigated around and dealt with pretty decently even when they did had the Gold Immunity.
 

Archpriest

User
#3
If you can't affect cards like YenCon (paging idomyownstunts ) as it was before or TrisButt... it's very, very bad for the game. I might however support a middle ground, like old cb Iorveth (being able to hit golds), silver locks affecting golds, etc.

With some tweaks, the game will be in a much better shape right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ramcius

User
#4
slamming your golds and laughing at your opponent inability deal with them wasn't tactical approach, now you have think more before playing your golds

only 1 faction have enough armor, so you telling other 4 have go full offensive? And what is offensive and defensive in Gwent?

no, we don't need 3 tier system, it's not chess, you don't have access to all your cards from the start of game

also, i heard devs are considering immune tag on cards, so that might be way better idea to give some cards immunity than all golds
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#5
Ramcius;n9459321 said:
slamming your golds and laughing at your opponent inability deal with them wasn't tactical approach, now you have think more before playing your golds


no, we don't need 3 tier system, it's not chess, you don't have access to all your cards from the start of game


Yes you do. You have all you cards in your deck as does you opponent. Similar to the Rook which you cannot use at the start of your game or a bishop blocked by your own piece.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#6
Ramcius;n9459321 said:
slamming your golds and laughing at your opponent inability deal with them wasn't tactical approach, now you have think more before playing your golds
When you put it that way, yes it sounds bizarre. But then again, not all the people are evil incarnates laughing at others' despair. Another thing to oppose you is this: both players have 4 slots for gold cards so this is once and for all NOT an issue about equality. Both players have equal starting grounds.
 
#7
I feel like some golds are just good scorch targets now, not that that is necessarily a bad thing but it made gwent gwent and gave it some extra layer of I can play something really big that cannot be easily cleared, now I feel like they are going to be the first thing a beginner is drawn to, to spend all their available dust on because why not have a 23 strength card in tibor for instance but also to have gotten yenefer the conjurer just before the change, knowing it was a powerful card with all the weather interactivity now just to be easily taken down with an alzurs thunder. I also feel like since spells had less targets it also made it more of a tactical choice. Anything like succubus, also another alzurs thunder away from being dead, almost anything can remove him tbh, clan brokvars, eat it up with a bear... atleast give the poor chap 4 armour to make him still of use.

It got rid of fun strategies like villentretenmerth into unseen elder to protect and hide your cards, also that NG promote deck which I always thought was kind of funny and incredibly intelligent in design. That and kayran? also just a good card that was probably good at protecting your points behind a meatshield and now I don't like the thought of running him, another beginner trap. It's now a different game, a different balancing system and probably 2 years behind where it was. I now don't know whether to expect legendary bronzes, all kinds of crazy things of the likes, still new content, new changes are good for a bit, but I would have preferred change or difference to come from about 100 odd new cards and I feel like the games falling behind the eight ball on my expectations.

I think CDPR just like all units to have a spot in the sunshine but it's just a power creep, constantly shifting the weakest unit into a core unit and visa versa. Just pray this ends outside of the beta phase.
 

Ramcius

User
#8
Karolis.petrikas;n9459411 said:
Yes you do. You have all you cards in your deck as does you opponent. Similar to the Rook which you cannot use at the start of your game or a bishop blocked by your own piece.
no, you don't, having cards in deck doesn't mean you will be able use them in near future like you can use Rook or Queen in chess by moving 1 or couple other pieces, on top of that most card draw are limited to bronze/silver or simply bronze
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#9
HenryGrosmont;n9459281 said:
Err, we don't. If you can't affect cards like YenCon (paging idomyownstunts ) as it was before or TrisButt... it's very, very bad for the game. I might however support a middle ground, like old cb Iorveth (being able to hit golds), silver locks affecting golds, etc.

With some tweaks, the game will be in a much better shape right now.
No, Henry, with all due respect. You're not correct. You were always able to affect gold cards. But before sacrificing a slot for shackles actually meant something. Now it's just too easy.

Before you used to think.
"Ok, I'd like to stop some of the golds out there, but do I have enough power if I sacrifice this slot to win the game? And How do I make sure I get shackles everytime? Hm Hm. I guess i'd better only get 4 types of bronzes, so I could blacklist on my first mulligan. hm hm hm. But that given I can't have this X bronze I like so much. I guess I have to risk it? Hm hm. But what's the chance I don't get this bronze I like so much in the first place, because now I have 2 bronzes I want at the start of the game."


Now you kind of think.
"Ok. Alzurs thunders, gets rid of most of those high damage low str golds. I'll add 3 of them."

I miss playing gwent in the deck builder.

And please please don't think I am objecting because I cannot win. I can. And I don't even use mulligan, swim spits or armor.

I want Gwent to have a FACE.

Lets continue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#10
Ramcius;n9459481 said:
no, you don't, having cards in deck doesn't mean you will be able use them in near future like you can use Rook or Queen in chess by moving 1 or couple other pieces, on top of that most card draw are limited to bronze/silver or simply bronze
That depends on a playstyle. In chess you may freely choose not to move a piece and still win a game.

Can you explain with an example what you meant by:
most card draw are limited to bronze/silver or simply bronze
I lost you there.

Also, can we discuss this privately, I don't want the thread to stray from the topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#11
HTMekkatorque;n9459471 said:
I also feel like since spells had less targets it also made it more of a tactical choice.
My man. A red point for you just for that sentence.

 

Ramcius

User
#12
Karolis.petrikas;n9459631 said:
That depends on a playstyle. In chess you may freely choose not to move a piece and still win a game.

Can you explain with an example what you meant by: I lost you there.

Also, can we discuss this privately, I don't want the thread to stray from the topic.
i meant cards like First light into Rally or Joachim de Wett - if your golds in your deck, you have less chances to get them, while in chess you can choose freely all your actions as you just said

and i think we on topic, we discuss why golds shouldn't have immunity, which is opposite to your opinion, but it's what forum is for, discuss different opinion
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#13
Ramcius;n9459711 said:
i meant cards like First light into Rally or Joachim de Wett - if your golds in your deck, you have less chances to get them, while in chess you can choose freely all your actions as you just said

and i think we on topic, we discuss why golds shouldn't have immunity, which is opposite to your opinion, but it's what forum is for, discuss different opinion
Ok, now I see what you mean. Yes, you're right about rally and Joachim de Wett. It's truly limited to bronzes and silvers.

Can we now proceed with gold immunity discussion?
 

Ramcius

User
#14
Karolis.petrikas;n9459801 said:
Ok, now I see what you mean. Yes, you're right about rally and Joachim de Wett. It's truly limited to bronzes and silvers.

Can we now proceed with gold immunity discussion?
ok, i put it other way, you think chess would be fair, if one player remove Queen from board and other took away Bishop? Golds without immunity are closer to silvers in power level, which is good for game, because it removes unnecessary RNG, when one player gets more golds than other
 

Schmaddi1

User
#15
Long story short:

gold cards dont need to be immune.

Gold cards should feel unique but its not relevant how this is achieved. Actually its way more interesting to have unique and strong effects on them which make them stand out from Bronze and Silver cards instead of just having medicore effects and an additional "cant die" lable. So no, the last thing we need are gold cards that cant be destroyed. But we need impactful effects on gold cards to make them feel special and stronger than other cards.


There are already several gold cards which have unique effects and feel very powerful or open up completely new strategic decisions. The problem isnt immunity. The problem is that not every Gold cards power level is high enough.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#16
Ramcius;n9459871 said:
ok, i put it other way, you think chess would be fair, if one player remove Queen from board and other took away Bishop? Golds without immunity are closer to silvers in power level, which is good for game, because it removes unnecessary RNG, when one player gets more golds than other
It's a good point. Now take this scenario and repeat it 1000 times. Do you think that you will get to play with your Queen and your opponent with his bishop anything in the vicinity of 500 times? does 500/1000 means 50%?

What I mean is, you'll get to have bad draws and RNG in case of immune or not immune golds. Both ways.

Lets stop this. This thread is not about this. Not about RNG. It's about gold cards being immune.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#17
Schmaddi1;n9460021 said:
There are already several gold cards which have unique effects and feel very powerful or open up completely new strategic decisions. The problem isnt immunity. The problem is that not every Gold cards power level is high enough.
Examples please.
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#19
SHALLAHJUSTICE;n9460301 said:
Change is a fundamental aspect of reality and one that you usually don't have a choice over. The only choice you do have is to adapt your strategy and attitude to the change or get left behind.
Nice one. Applies to many things in life.
 

Schmaddi1

User
#20
Karolis.petrikas;n9460271 said:
Examples please.
The dude that kills an unbuffed target.

The elf that draws a trap card.

Gigni.

The frost dude that moves a target.

The new gold that lets you mulligan two cards at once.

The monster gold that lets you consume an enemies unit.

The new witcher that deals anti swarm damage.

The gold that lets you move a card of your enemies deck to its bottom.

The dude that lets you use a tactics card from your deck.

And so on.

Actually there are many gold cards which have effects

a) you cant find on Bronze or Silver cards and
b) are pretty powerful

But some are not powerful enough, some dont feel unique enough IMHO. But thats no problem, this can easily be balanced by increasing the power of their specific effect or reworking their effects to overall stronger, unique effects. But immunitey is definetely not needed to be "special".

Nobody besides you wants immune gold cards with unimpactful, boring effects. What we need are gold cards that are balanced around having strong and unique effects, not just "big points on the board that cant be removed". Actually Gigni is a pretty good example. The ~4 points of his body were not too relevant, yet many decks played Gigni. Because a strong, immune body isnt needed at all. A strong effect on the gold cards is needed. And I would choose a cool and unique effect over a generic big body with an unimpactful effect every single day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.