I have The same feeling.It is extremely irritating playing against Lockdown. Even more so than Viy in my opinion.
Because this is simply not true.So, a lot of games are insta forfeit against lockdown and The devs cant see that
Well, i think when you say "competitive play" you means ranked matches.Because this is simply not true.
A few players insta-forfeiting against specific decks is one thing, in competitive play I couldn't name any serious deck that would be auto-lose just because they lose their Leader or the synergies coming from it. Those that do are taking an artificial risk.
Yes, Lockdown is a special case of a LEader that forces your opponent to change their overall strategy. I'd say one should start a match already having an alternate win condition path in mind in case his/her leader gets disabled - that is just as much part of the strategic mindset in the game as keeping faction specific alternate tactics in mind.
Yes, that is what I meant, sorry for not being precise with the wording there.Well, i think when you say "competitive play" you means ranked matches.
In that case i Will parcial agree with you.
Indeed, and this scenario you mention has not only one, but 2 good examples on how this works out.So, as example, ursine ritual (tier 1 in The Last seasonal) Will have 2 or 3 cards to do self damage, and dont need to use The leader charges. But even in that case, problably The NG lockdown deck Will have 2 or 3 blocks (or damage) to stop those cards.
This scenario is different, and I agree, a good example where a deck greatly suffers because of the Lockdown. The main reason however is not the loss of the Leader ability itself (you can live without the extra 3x3 coins) but the issue of having an entire deck depending on that Leader.Bt, for another example, almost all The hidden cache decks are useless against lockdown.
Dont have The 3 coins per turn and hoard - 2 kills almost all The HC decks.
I agree here, however I would definitely see the way out from this issue by revisiting all lackluster SY Leaders and bringing them to a competitve level (as well as the right cards that synergize with these Leaders).Lockdown is a problem especially for SY because overall SY leaders are very weak and the entire faction basically have two ways of playing, so once you shut their leader down it becomes difficult to keep up with the points.
Yes, definitely this, HC is the only real leader that sinergies well with (most of ) SY cards because it's a well rounded/ good leader ability.I agree here, however I would definitely see the way out from this issue by revisiting all lackluster SY Leaders and bringing them to a competitve level (as well as the right cards that synergize with these Leaders).
I don’t think the real problem with the SY / lockdown imbalance is particular leader strengths or weaknesses. The problem is that leaders profoundly impact the coin economy. When that economy is optimized for a particular leader and that leader is disabled, the deck almost invariably becomes badly suboptimal. And if you balance the economy assuming no leader, you will have a significantly weaker deck when the leader is not locked down. Thus SY will either be generally overpowered or it will be underpowered vs. lockdown.Lockdown is a problem especially for SY because overall SY leaders are very weak and the entire faction basically have two ways of playing, so once you shut their leader down it becomes difficult to keep up with the points.
Decks trashing meta, that depend on leader :There are no actually good decks that depend on the leader ability.
That kind of proves the understated point I was making. They are fragile gimmick decks that fall apart if one thing is missing. They are not good decks that depend mainly on the skill of the player.Decks trashing meta, that depend on leader :
So, depending on a faction, there are many decks that depend on a leader, with Skellige beeing the most leader depending faction as a whole, due to their great synergies.