Jobs Support Register

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

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
#21
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

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
this ... it's a good point of view
 

Ramcius

User
#22
Karolis.petrikas;n9460221 said:
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.
So, you saying RNG should decide winner, a.k.a if you get Queen or Bishop as long as it's 50/50 in the end? No, thx, i prefer fair game every time

Yes, i know, and i making point why golds being immune increase RNG in Gwent
 
#23
Schmaddi1;n9460021 said:
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.
agreed
 
#25
Not to mention that cards that don't have an immediate value no longer have a place in competitive Gwent because immediately acting golds will always be superior.
 

4RM3D

Moderator
#26
Cleaned up the thread a bit. Please, refrain from posting "Yes, you do" and "No, I don't" posts without adding any explanation to support your view.
 
Last edited:

Archpriest

User
#27
Karolis.petrikas;n9459561 said:
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.
With all due respect, we're exchanging opinions based on our experience. So, saying that someone isn't correct is erroneous (the most important part) and not polite (don't care about that). Just saying...

Karolis.petrikas;n9459561 said:
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."
Actually, no. People were just dropping golds (esp in the 3rd) and watch the world burn. Card like YenCon and TrissButt were pain in the ass. Don't say that d-shackles were the answer. The truth is that the game evolved more and more as "the highest value wins". That's why cards like d-shackles were unpopular. Using certain golds with impunity, and golds in general, isn't good for the game. The majority of the gold cards are very powerful on Deploy. The very few who need a longer setup won't have a place in the game very soon. And I don't thin kit's bad: YenCon round 1, Renew YenCon round 2. Even if you used d-shackles in the first, you're screwed in the second. Plus, the aggressor can unshackle the now silver card. Bad design. Playing with out dealing with the consequences doesn't make for a deep thinking game.

Karolis.petrikas;n9459561 said:
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."
And yet none does that. For the reason I presented above - low value. And that's why Sages are good.

Karolis.petrikas;n9459561 said:
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.
My friend, I don't think you can't win. I just think that you haven't given more thought to the change or haven't looked from a different angle. I blame the lack of time...

Gwent has a face. The immune, immensely strong golds shouldn't be that.
 
#29
The first point is confusing. You're comments are why. Removing gold immunity has little bearing on player A getting a good draw and player B getting a bad draw. It can still happen. The only difference is now golds are susceptible to removal. I fail to see how this solves bad vs good draws. Assuming card tiers matter and higher tier cards are generally superior to lower tier cards, this situation will still result in an advantage gap.

The second point is debatable. On one hand, vulnerable golds means you can more readily interact with gold cards without teching specifically to do so. On the other hand... Now you don't have to think as far ahead to play around gold cards. Case and point, decks designed to stack golds R3 in the previous patch could be played around or countered in a number of ways. Claims you had to carry Dshackles to stop Borkh/Kambi centered decks, or decks could mindlessly drop 4 golds R3 and autowin, are simply false. Just as Triss:Butt MS decks or Yen:Con Axe decks could, in fact, be countered without direct counters to gold cards. It just happened to require... thinking... and not "play this card". Furthermore, the issue with these last two examples wasn't even the gold cards.

The third point is also debatable but for the most part I'd agree.

I won't comment on #4 :).

In terms of #5, absolutely. All of the changes from the start of OB up until now seem to be eroding the structure of the game. I think this is a mistake, for a variety of reasons. It removes what made Gwent.... Gwent. It also shifts deck design more toward running the highest value cards available and away from building toward balanced decks.
 

arubino99

User
#30
I'm fine with golds being immune or not immune. Either way is good. The problem is that some golds were and are still balanced around having that immunity. Take that away, and a good chunk of golds simply can't be played.

The other issue is that right now, golds are getting outclassed by bronzes.
 
#31
arubino99;n9463471 said:
I'm fine with golds being immune or not immune. Either way is good. The problem is that some golds were and are still balanced around having that immunity. Take that away, and a good chunk of golds simply can't be played.

The other issue is that right now, golds are getting outclassed by bronzes.
yep indeed ... maybe in the next patch, every single gold card in the game, could have their base strenght increased by +2 plus points ?
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#32
HenryGrosmont;n9462131 said:
With all due respect, we're exchanging opinions based on our experience. So, saying that someone isn't correct is erroneous (the most important part) and not polite (don't care about that). Just saying...


Actually, no. People were just dropping golds (esp in the 3rd) and watch the world burn. Card like YenCon and TrissButt were pain in the ass. Don't say that d-shackles were the answer. The truth is that the game evolved more and more as "the highest value wins". That's why cards like d-shackles were unpopular. Using certain golds with impunity, and golds in general, isn't good for the game. The majority of the gold cards are very powerful on Deploy. The very few who need a longer setup won't have a place in the game very soon. And I don't thin kit's bad: YenCon round 1, Renew YenCon round 2. Even if you used d-shackles in the first, you're screwed in the second. Plus, the aggressor can unshackle the now silver card. Bad design. Playing with out dealing with the consequences doesn't make for a deep thinking game.


And yet none does that. For the reason I presented above - low value. And that's why Sages are good.


My friend, I don't think you can't win. I just think that you haven't given more thought to the change or haven't looked from a different angle. I blame the lack of time...

Gwent has a face. The immune, immensely strong golds shouldn't be that.
ok, a few points here I'd like to clarify.

1. what does "the highest value wins" means. Can you give me an example?
2. Renew into Yenefer or TrissButt still vulnerable to shackles, isn't it? I don't get it why running 2 shackles is a problem to answer those. Lets say you answered Yen Con twise with shackles and unable to answer it 3rd time after decoy even though the gold is now silver (highly unlikely you won't have answer to it by this point). But lets assume you can't answer that. You have invested 2 bronzes, your opponent 2 golds and a silver. Just pass if you're round 2. If Round 3 play your golds denying YenCon targets as much as you can or place 1 high Str unit to give her 1 target. To answer TrissButt stagger opponents lowest unit to give her 1 target only. I think I covered all possible scenarios with these 2 cards. They can be answered tactically which I just flanking love.
3. I never use golds for points. I prefer golds with tactical approach tenfold. By taking that away from me CDPR punished my style of gameplay.
 

DrDang

User
#33
OP's post reads like some sort of zen proverb. Sounds deep, but in actuality has little rationale or meaning.
 
#34
I truly believe golds losing immunity is the correct direction, but it will take some more updates to smooth out the wrinkles. At the moment it feels rough with certain golds, along with all the other bugs and balancing issues. Give it time, and have faith in CDPR. I sure trust them.
 
Last edited:
#35
Keep gold cards as they are now. Making them immune in the first place was retarded. People who are for gold immunity are talking like removing the immunity screwed them but helped everybody else. As if the cards weren't the same for everybody. 'Oh no, they removed gold immunity and now my uncounterable third round finisher doesn't work anymore.'
The game is far from perfect and some things are imbalanced but it's far better than it was before the patch. Way better. You have no idea how much better it is and how many deck types are viable besides the brainless ones that are at the top of the gwentdb deck list. Of course, if all you've done your whole life was netdeck you will never enjoy the early days of a patch and you will always yearn for the days before the patch when you actually knew what you were doing. That's why you miss the old golds. You don't know how to play the new ones.
And I'm not saying that as in insult nor do I think it's wrong for people to netdeck. MMORPGs have cookie cutter talents and best in slot items, MOBAs have standard item builds. It's okay to netdeck. Soon you won't miss the old golds because you will have decks that are good and enjoyable. Right now you have only a few decks which are good and probably you don't find them enjoyable.
 

Kingoko

User
#36
In my mulligan crap deck, its sometimes better to mulligan for bronze instead for gold, that sucks, actually i think i could run this deck with just 3 golds and 1 more bronze.
And btw we can only have 4 gold cards in deck, it's not easy to play them all in one game, so immunity isn't an issue, anymore. You talkin about gold finishers? Like Tibor etc. But hey, now it's even more retarded, you keep your scorches or meginord to play as last card. Much strategy and planning lol.
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
#37
VladAtheris;n9464751 said:
Keep gold cards as they are now. Making them immune in the first place was retarded. People who are for gold immunity are talking like removing the immunity screwed them but helped everybody else. As if the cards weren't the same for everybody. 'Oh no, they removed gold immunity and now my uncounterable third round finisher doesn't work anymore.'
The game is far from perfect and some things are imbalanced but it's far better than it was before the patch. Way better. You have no idea how much better it is and how many deck types are viable besides the brainless ones that are at the top of the gwentdb deck list. Of course, if all you've done your whole life was netdeck you will never enjoy the early days of a patch and you will always yearn for the days before the patch when you actually knew what you were doing. That's why you miss the old golds. You don't know how to play the new ones.
And I'm not saying that as in insult nor do I think it's wrong for people to netdeck. MMORPGs have cookie cutter talents and best in slot items, MOBAs have standard item builds. It's okay to netdeck. Soon you won't miss the old golds because you will have decks that are good and enjoyable. Right now you have only a few decks which are good and probably you don't find them enjoyable.
this is a zero negativity thread. Give your constructive example (s) why you think golds were initially bad. For example. You said that uncountarable 3rd round finishers is now countarable. Give me an example why do you think vilenretenmerth, as a 3rd round finisher, would not go off opposing a mulligan deck. When all opponent has left are his high str units. Either 3 or 2 of them. Also.
Why do you think you/ we have a few viable decks and it is not enjoyable and how would you rectify this.
notice how I dont try to insult you and try to do the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
#38
Kinglionsfox;n9464621 said:
I truly believe golds losing immunity is the correct direction, but it will take some more updates to smooth out the wrinkles. At the moment it feels rough with certain golds, along with all the other bugs and balancing issues. Give it time, and have faith in CDPR. I sure trust them.
Define "wrinkles". Define the "certain golds". Define "balancing issues". Thank you.
 

BornBoring

User
#39
They should have allowed more cards to interact with gold cards instead of removing gold immunity completely.
 

Legendarum

User
#40
What would be the issue of giving specific gold cards some armor, instead of immunity? - I mean cards like Triss: Butterfly, that requires them to stick around for a little while.

Armor wouldn't mean they're buffed point wise, they'd just be a little harder to kill, as opppsed to completely immune. It may take two azor's to kill one, rather than one, for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.