|
Help me polish my Reveal deck, guys I would like to replace the White Frost (which usually is cleared next turn, so the damage isn't high) with something else. With whatever, I have scrap so I can craft. Options: Cantarella, Cynthia, Guardian? Before I had in that slot the Bekker's Twisted Mirror because it's a fun card and I got it a few days ago so there was a novelty aspect, but it wasn't a very synergistic with my deck, as there are some opponent decks with 1 strength cards (medics) but I didn't have, and I have some high strength cards like the Spotters, so sometimes it was very tricky using it, even if I planned ahead. Maybe putting a simple Scorch or Decoy (to replay Vanhemar, Auckes or Peter) would be a better option.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
So has the meta settled post-patch yet? I need a new deck to change it up from my Dagon deck. NR Machine maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Xtanstic posted:So has the meta settled post-patch yet? I need a new deck to change it up from my Dagon deck. NR Machine maybe? It's bear meta now and forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/21943-wangid1 This deck got rank 1 recently and seems kinda neat. Or play Skellige.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
King Pawn posted:http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/21943-wangid1 The bear thing is a meme, I think. As good as they are now, they are beatable. The truth is, consume monsters, weather monsters and machine NR has reached the top positions of the ranks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:The bear thing is a meme, I think. As good as they are now, they are beatable. The truth is, consume monsters, weather monsters and machine NR has reached the top positions of the ranks. It's all about those Axemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:It's all about those Axemen. I know them, and yes, there is a very good synergy between them. Still: Locks, twisted mirror, succubus, scorch, gigni, Dudu, rot tosser spam, Villent, Letho, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
the dreaded 'gentleman's agreement to never ever run scorch' meta
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Just listing out cards never proves a point. Dedicating deck-slots devoted to managing threats like Axemen isn't a recent invention. Even without them Skellige decks are quite potent. The referred to Panda deck: http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/18604-top-1-pandas-crach-hjalmmr-updated-patch
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:Help me polish my Reveal deck, guys
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:I know them, and yes, there is a very good synergy between them. Still: Locks, twisted mirror, succubus, scorch, gigni, Dudu, rot tosser spam, Villent, Letho, etc. Who is playing dudu?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Who is playing dudu? Don't kinkshame
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Who is playing dudu? Lol. Ok, I don't play it either, but hey, if there is an Axeman meta, he can be useful! Improved version of my NG reveal deck:  I went it hard and In the end I crafted not only Cynthia but Leo too, and both have reveal effects. Leo is particularly strong with this deck, as I have 2 10 str cards and the 3 spotters can be 13-14 at the end of the match. With that much focus on reveal, it made sense to put the third Spotter. I also put the third golem, and focused more on Fire Scorpions than Mangonels, after reflecting how Mangonels are theoretically stronger with the proper setup but half of the time they are destroyed, or locked or they pass the round, so in the end I think Scorpions are better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:Lol. Ok, I don't play it either, but hey, if there is an Axeman meta, he can be useful! Alzurs Double Cross instead of Roach to pull out a bigger R3 Spotter to protect your others from bad things happening-
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Someone just letho'd a 60 power row on my side and then dimeritium bombed it. I love this person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Whenever you mulligan a crone there has to be a higher chance to get another crone. Has to be. I can't believe that happening 9 matches in a row is variance. Also I can't remember the last time I drew a gold off a mulligan'd crone, or the last time I was able to play all 4 golds in a match. Hey, when I play 2 I consider myself lucky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Rank 9 yayy! I want to reach rank 10, once I do that I will be at peace with myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
The Gorp posted:Someone just letho'd a 60 power row on my side and then dimeritium bombed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
King Pawn posted:http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/21943-wangid1 I've seen a couple variants of this, it seems pretty fun. The most recent one I saw used Nenneke to pull 2 of them back into the deck at the end of R1 and then revived the third. Kawabata posted:Whenever you mulligan a crone there has to be a higher chance to get another crone. Has to be. Yesterday I got all 4 of my golds in my opening hand (including Ge'els) along with 2 foggers and 2 crones. It was the worst hand I've ever had, probably. But yeah, it is total bullshit the number of times tossing a crone gets another crone. Or, before the nerf, Roach. I really want to look into other silvers since crones are just clunky as hell and especially rough when you're running fog, but it's just an insanely good point swing for 1 card if you don't get bad draws. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
drat, I played against a Spell NG deck which totally countered me. My siege machines, my silver cards and Leo didn't have a target to damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Yesterday I got all 4 of my golds in my opening hand (including Ge'els) along with 2 foggers and 2 crones. It was the worst hand I've ever had, probably. But yeah, it is total bullshit the number of times tossing a crone gets another crone. Or, before the nerf, Roach. I really want to look into other silvers since crones are just clunky as hell and especially rough when you're running fog, but it's just an insanely good point swing for 1 card if you don't get bad draws. Like I don't want to go all conspiracy theory here, but if I I didn't know better it's almost like you actually have a higher chance to redraw them than anything else. I play with a tracker and the number of times I get another crone with more than 10 cards left in the deck is loving ridiculous. It may be higher than 50%. Am I missing something here? Also yeah they're clunky but they're too strong to drop. Whether you use them to close the first round or as a 3rd round 20 points bomb. I don't know of any other silver faction card that gives 20 unconditional points by itself provided you had decent mulligans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:Like I don't want to go all conspiracy theory here, but if I I didn't know better it's almost like you actually have a higher chance to redraw them than anything else. I play with a tracker and the number of times I get another crone with more than 10 cards left in the deck is loving ridiculous. It may be higher than 50%. Am I missing something here?  When you mulligan a card, it goes into your deck, then you draw your next card AROUND that card, leaving it in position if it's on the top of the deck. This is totally unintuitive and will bite new players forever. Rethaz has already expressed extreme stubbornness on this topic. I believe this also means that a card you mulligan on rounds 2/3 are twice as likely to be your top card. Again, completely insane. No Wave fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Lifecoach's stream is pretty depressing to watch nowadays. Almost all of top 100, including him and JJ, are playing the same Skellige deck. Literally at least 9/10 of games are mirrors. CDPR hosed up, yet again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
The audacity of these Skilege players is dumbfounding. Three games in a row they try to win 2-0 and avoid round 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
No Wave posted:It's because the way the mulligans are set up are really dumb. This image is the easiest explanation for it. I cannot even begin to tell you how embarrassed I am that I'm almost rank 16 (always losing the rankup match by 2-3 points, which is driving me insane) and I had no idea about this. The only thing I knew was that if you mulligan a card in the first round you can't get it again in the same mulligan. Thanks. Holy poo poo that's counter-intuitive and for some reason not mentioned ever anywhere in twitch streams or reddit or gwentdb. Holy loving poo poo. Kawabata fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:I cannot even begin to tell you how embarrassed I am that I'm almost rank 16 (always losing the rankup match by 2-3 points, which is driving me insane) and I had no idea about this. The only thing I knew was that if you mulligan a card in the first round you can't get it again. Swim has talked about this a lot, and he tends to find this issue way more aggravating than the coinflip everybody loves to hate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:I cannot even begin to tell you how embarrassed I am that I'm almost rank 16 (always losing the rankup match by 2-3 points, which is driving me insane) and I had no idea about this. The only thing I knew was that if you mulligan a card in the first round you can't get it again in the same mulligan. I assume that blacklisted cards will ALSO be drawn around, making it even more likely for musters to be on the top of your deck. Doesn't apply to crones, but explains all those double foglet r2 draws. @Showtime - I might ask you to put that image in the op, it's a little complicated for new players but it's really important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Voorhis mirrors are the dumbest thing and I love them. You still want to use your mechanic despite the fact that it enables your opponents deck, it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
No Wave posted:It's because the way the mulligans are set up are really dumb. This image is the easiest explanation for it. I have no idea how to read this infographic. To me it's like one of those terrible math questions. If 2 roaches are shuffled into the deck 3 minutes apart how fast are they going when they enter the graveyard? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Double Bill posted:Lifecoach's stream is pretty depressing to watch nowadays. Almost all of top 100, including him and JJ, are playing the same Skellige deck. Literally at least 9/10 of games are mirrors. I was actually happy with the last meta. NG and Skellige were a little too good, but the games felt fun to play against minus hunters, and Monsters and Scoia'tael could compete fairly well and while NR wasn't great, they did have A viable deck. Feels like everything got kneejerk nerfed too hard without addressing some of the weird issues like SK simultaneously having the best cards to drag out a round and also the best cards for round 3. This meta's actively putting me off playing until we get another balance pass, and who knows when that'll be... Minera fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Yeah the infographic is at least as counter-intuitive as the mechanic it tries to explain. Finally got to 16!  Playing a lot lately, and while it might be early to tell the feeling is that they overnerfed and overbuffed everything. Nilfgaard was strong but still had counters. Skellige was in a similar spot. Monsters were viable at any rank. Spelltael was viable as well. Hell even weird NR decks would take the top spot from time to time. Buffs to ST and NR were welcome, but they managed to take a diversified meta and gently caress it up completely. Ciri should have been lowered to 6, and why the hell Roach is 4. The mulliganing and the fact that Roach could appear on any row, therefore potentially damaging you when playing vs weather/Igni was enough of a drawback. RnR and Drought were also nerfed way too hard in a meta where they were already going out of favor. I don't think they as oppressive as people thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Minrad posted:I was actually happy with the last meta. NG and Skellige were a little too good, but the games felt fun to play against minus hunters, and Monsters and Scoia'tael could compete fairly well and while NR wasn't great, they did have A viable deck. Feels like everything got kneejerk nerfed too hard without addressing some of the weird issues like SK simultaneously having the best cards to drag out a round and also the best cards for round 3. I'm inclined to agree with you from a balance perspective, but I find nothing but machine NR and Bearwolf Skellige more fun to play against than Reaver Hunters and Nilfgaard. Maybe that's just because weather monsters has better matchups against both. I know the feeling though, it stopped me from playing all together for the two days before the patch. RNR and Drought wouldn't be played if they were still 3's because the top decks all play on one lane anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Is there actually a reasonable and elegant alternative to the current mulligan system? You can't shuffle the deck after mulliganing, because that would screw up abilities based on looking at or placing cards at certain positions in the deck. You don't want different rules on how cards are mulliganed depending on what round you are on, because that would be inelegant. The only alternative to the current system I can think of is to draw the card and then place the mulliganed card back in at a random position, but that only reduces the probabilities of the current system. It would make the last mulligan of a round uniform in probability though instead of making it twice as likely to be on the top of the deck. comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Oh I guess the obvious elegant solution to the problem: Put mulliganed cards off to the side as you mulligan them and do not place them back into the deck until you have drawn all the cards. Now the mulliganed cards should have a uniform probability to be drawn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Is there actually a reasonable and elegant alternative to the current mulligan system? So if you mull a foglet M1 and it gets placed on the top of the deck, when it's drawn again for M2 just shuffle it back in and draw another card for M2. Your solution one post above works for the mulled cards, but it doesn't address blacklisted cards at the top of your deck. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Reshuffling blacklisted cards actually screws with probabilities too, but just in the other way. It means that if you blacklist a foglet, it's going to be less likely that the foglets are going to be on the top of the deck. This makes it so you can't just assume every card is drawn with uniform probability after you are done with the mulligan phase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Reshuffling blacklisted cards actually screws with probabilities too, but just in the other way. It means that if you blacklist a foglet, it's going to be less likely that the foglets are going to be on the top of the deck. This makes it so you can't just assume every card is drawn with uniform probability after you are done with the mulligan phase. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Addressing blacklists in my solution: Put mulliganed cards off to the side as you mulligan them and do not place them back into the deck until you have drawn all the cards. When you draw to replace a mulligan, keep drawing a card until you find a card that is not blacklisted. After you draw a card and put it into your hand, place the blacklisted cards in order back on top of the deck. Now, you should be able to assume any single card in your deck will be drawn with uniform probability after the draw. This system also maintains relative ordering of your deck from before the mulligan phase so you can better take advantage of deck revealing abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
No Wave posted:That's incorrect. Blacklisting a foglet under the scheme I proposed does not make it less likely to be at the top of the deck than a shuffled pile of cards. The probability ends up being 1/15 for every card/position pair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Addressing blacklists in my solution: I understand the order argument, though, and you're probably right that that's why the current system is implemented as such - you're also right that the set-aside plan preserves that. Implementing blacklisting at all leads to some odd implications I guess. comedyblissoption posted:Actually yah you are right. I was thinking about it wrong. Probabilities are hard. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:40
|
|