It doesn't matter if you are Level 15, 25 or 0. Decks are viable or not viable. And as I answered to you in the other thread were your ST deck was moved, your deck is just not viable.
Well we can't all be as knowledgeable as you, can we. Defend this sack of shit all you want, mate, I know crap when I see it.
What exactly are you attempting to say here? Rank 15 players aren't allowed to run decent decks and pilot them properly? Are you expecting people in ranked to roll over, consistently misplay and utilize poorly constructed decks?
Everyone has to start somewhere. While I'm sure some players aren't very good that is perfectly okay. The rank 15 player may have turned over a new leaf and opted to clean up their play or build better decks. Perhaps they have learned the game better. It could potentially be a smurf account. There are any number of reasons why this supposed "experimenter" would be running quality decks and piloting them well.
If you're expecting to waltz into ranked and trounce over everyone up until an arbitrary point because, well, they're only rank 15-30 it might be part of the problem. Assuming the other player isn't very good or won't be running a quality deck because they're only rank X, Y or Z is a huge mistake. That is a good way to get trounced
.
Definitely one point of view and I can see where those assumptions came from. Another point of view is that I might be an old Gwent Beta player who'd put a lot of time and effort in, regularly seeing that effort rewarded with Level 19 or 20 out of 21. Please do correct me here, but struggling around lvl 12-15 regularly losing as many - if not more - than I win is kinda similar to being lvl 8-10 in Gwent Beta and not getting any further?
The insinuation here is that I'm a little bit thick and don't know what makes a winning deck, which is a bit rude. What I'm talking - endlessly and repeatedly - about is the point of this thread, that it is the deal and the algorithm behind it that makes for the win or loss, more so than the strategy. Play big Monster deck, lost because the opponent has both Geralt's in his final two hands. If I was - in that case - running a Sihil deck with ST, it's a simple win. My problem is not so much in the winning or losing - though I do get salty a.f. when the deals are so biased - it's that the game is decided on who you're facing, and what you're dealt. Everything else is a procession.
I won a couple of games this afternoon, not ashamed to say both opponents were....dreadful. One managed to have a 2 card disadvantage, then played instead of dry-passing R2! The next had a dreadful deal left with a sprinkling of filler bronzes in R3. Others, as per the pictures above, have had TEN golds dealt with just one tutor (Royal Decree, itself a Gold that pulled a Gold!!!!). No chance, nobody would. The point i am desperately trying to make here is that it's not about me trying to be on a ladder or a pro, and I don't think for one second I'm a master deckbuilder (that much is obvious!). It's about a game that offer a fair matchup every time where the outcome of the game is MAINLY dictated by the skill of the player, not the quality of the deal or the RNG of constantly boosting/pulling 3 point bronzes (NG -specific).
I just do NOT understand how one player gets to play ten golds, when 6 of mine are in the final 9 cards. It's absolutely and completely STUPID! If we had the ability to manipulate our deck, get guarantees on certain cards, even the deal that's produced it would INSTANTLY make Gwent a bearable - possibly even half-decent - card game. As it is, it's a boring procession of "who got the best deal", with the very rare odd game that's closer because the deal was fair and neither player has a removal answer to the others' question. That's the game I played in Beta, that's the game I want back.