Why is everyone playing Lock in ranked??

+
Fuuuuck, this is so boring. It is just a terrible, terrible experience.

Can someone explain why is everyone using the Lock leader?
 
You can either use toxic leader interactions for Viy, or Skellige, or go "f... this toxic meta !" and go Lockdown.

We have dozens of leaders, in reality - 3 from Skellige, 2 from Scoiatael, 2 from Northern Realms, and just 1 from Nilfgaard and 1 tiny Syndicate representation.

I might soon hit 1800 played hours since Beta, and there were always problems with toxic meta.
 

Messyr

Forum regular
Lockdown is not an ultimate weapon - it is good against decks that massively rely on leader abilities (indeed, Viy and UR are good examples, especially as they reaked havoc across the meta last month). Having a "Lockdown meta" is totally understandable and a straight up consequence of the former state.
Now comes the next part - adaptation. Come up with solid options vs. Lockdown (they are definitely beatable, all current variations).
 

Messyr

Forum regular
It is extremely irritating playing against Lockdown. Even more so than Viy in my opinion.
Whoooa, careful there, that is one dangerous alley you walked into :D
I can still hear the echoes of sobs about Viy decks from last month :cry:
 
It is extremely irritating playing against Lockdown. Even more so than Viy in my opinion.
I have The same feeling.

And its always The same excuse.... "bla bla bla, viy deck, ursine ritual deck...the meta deck, we need to fight meta..."

Why they cant admit they like to play lockdown, whatever is The meta.

In other hand, i read sometimes ago someone saying The devs wont change lockdown because this ability its actually One of the original tw wh ability.

For me thats its stupid. There isnt a deck in The original The witcher wich its create thinking in The leader ability. All those ability are almost useles and Just add a card in The game.

In gwent we have a lot of decks that depends The leader ability. Its not only viy and cerys/lippy, but Also all The sy decks, some other monster decks, spelliatel deck and etc etc etc.

So, a lot of games are insta forfeit against lockdown and The devs cant see that
 
There are no actually good decks that depend on the leader ability. If you have a deck that absolutely can not function against Lockdown you need to assess your deck design and play strategies.

Im not even a dedicated NG player, but I will still say Lockdown is not a big problem. I find the constant double-plays of Cantarella and Joachim to be far more annoying than Lockdown. I also think that milling as a strategy is far more frustrating than Lockdown.

In general I think echo is more problematic than anything besides Viy and Lippy. Decks are already small, and have a number of tutors. Having predictable repeating plays of the same card begs people to use the most abusive strategies if the repeating card is good. (So coup is always used, and Ard Gaeth is rarely used.)
 
So, a lot of games are insta forfeit against lockdown and The devs cant see that
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.
 
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.
Well, i think when you say "competitive play" you means ranked matches.
In that case i Will parcial agree with you.

First of course when someone is playing on rank problably it wont insta forfeit, because its useless do that.

Neverthelesse, we are talking about specific decks, The "meta" or "tier 1" decks.

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.

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.

Of course somene can create a specific deck to beats lockdown, but that deck Will problably be weak agains all The others decks

The same example aplys for almost all The SY leaders/decks. And If we see, almost all The sy leaders doesnt have a Good win rate.
 
Well, i think when you say "competitive play" you means ranked matches.
In that case i Will parcial agree with you.
Yes, that is what I meant, sorry for not being precise with the wording there.

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.
Indeed, and this scenario you mention has not only one, but 2 good examples on how this works out.
1. Yes, the Lockdown Leader effectively hinders the main combos of the deck, greatly increasing brick chances.
2. With some creative deck building (in this case, adding selfpings like Brokvar) one can effectively reduce these negative effects to a certain level (still, they will have to change their tactic from the get go).
I believe this shows the right scenario.

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.
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.
The short answer for this scenario is that bringing such a deck into a ranked meta where Lockdown is popular is simply not a good choice.
 
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.
Lockdown for me is still the necessary evil, but only because the devs can't balance this game for good. " Don't hate the player, hate the game".
 
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.
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 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).

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.
 
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.
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.

The only real solution I see ( short of either eliminating lockdown or eliminating coins) would be to provide SY cards able to adjust the economy to compensate for the lost leader — and I’m not sure I see a good way to do even this.
 
There are no actually good decks that depend on the leader ability.

Decks trashing meta, that depend on leader :

MO:
OH - 3 consume pings that provide finisher with - for example - Detlaff.
Or can add Viy charge combined with a tutor, that draws Viy
This deck entirely depends on OH.
Most consume decks were heavily dependant on a leader finisher - like with Detlaff, even prior to Viy.
This is so leader dependant, that other MO leaders are almost irrelevant - if you want to go MO in upper tiers you have to go OH.

Other viable MO deck - Keltullis + Ciri - is also heavily dependant on leader, as Veil+boost saves crucial cards form removal/lock, that would destroy deck strategy.

SK:
Ursine Ritual - ping Cerys the same turn resulting in an insta combo, that cannot be prevented.
That is entirely dependant on this skill. Also used for removal with Lugos.
If not for the leader - those combos would require a setup, that could be interrupted.

The same goes for Battle Trance + Cerys/Dracoturtle - total leader dependant combo, that wins games.

Patricidal Fury - a bit less, but still powerful leader dependant decks - Arnjolf + Champion Charge = points + insta removal = game winner combo.

SK has most solely leader dependant heavy power swings.
That is just a fact.

NR:
Shieldwall - skill that creates a very toxic combo with duelling cards, not mentioning Viraxas Formation resulting in a last turn game winning swing. Also crucial boosters like Vysogota or Anna Strenger are too weak without Shieldwall...or a defender.
Without Shieldwall charges this setup is much more weaker.

NG:
Lockdown - locks toxic leaders from above, giving a fair chance for RNG to decide - yup, better draws wins this matchup, when toxic opponent leader is down.


Honourable mention : almost entire SY faction is heavily leader dependant. Either be that decreasing tribute/hoard - if disabled decks are much slower, or locking winning combos, coins gains.
..except for Congregate - most prominent meta deck from SY.
I oftentimes crushed NG with Congregate, maybe except from Assimilate decks, as they have a lot of leader independent engines.

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.
Thats why SK is a top faction for several seasons in a row.
 
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.

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.

Its the same reason you see "good" players with "good" decks lose to unfamliar gimmick decks that they didnt learn to play against by watching youtube. Ive had a decent time lately playing very basic decks that were common last year that are suddenly exotic seeming to the netdeckers.

I find specific cards to be for more "toxic" than lockdown. Joachim/coup, Gord, Viy...
 
Top Bottom