|
Lets do some math: if you don't have one of the two exact cards that partially deal with kambi (since there is no single card that counters it neatly), you are going to face 25+10+13-11 = 37 gold power after kambi goes off. (That's hjallmar, avallach and geralt minus hemdall). Also they are pretty much always going to shackle two to three of your golds. If we're generous and say you get to keep two 8 power golds alive and have the last play, that puts you 21 power behind, too much even for crones or witchers to overcome. Gross.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Are there any good decks that aren't going all in to win round 1? It's stupidly valuable because it makes spies really good and you control how long round 2 goes etc. I have this bad instinct of giving up round 1 for 1 CA and I'm getting screwed over. Semi-related but they really need to give some kind of bonus to the player that goes first in round 1. I heard a suggestion that the player that goes first r1 always goes second r3, it sounds good to me. Amusingly based on the first paragraph, the best way to beat Kambi is to win r1 and bleed them r2 until they're forced to use key combo cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Not been playing super long but as far as I can tell giving up R1 is fine as long as: * you make sure you get decent card advantage out of it - this means you're basically trading R1 for R3 * your not playing against that Kambi deck or that NF deck that buffs the gently caress out of 2 guys, persists them and then plays that gold that eats them turn 1 round 2 for 100+ on a gold. (wasn't even mad the first time that happened to me!) A lot of less good players seem to be unable to resist over extending themselves to win R1 when you pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Skellige bears doesn't have to win R1 either, due to the carryover value of Morkvarg and the insane finishers in Hjalmar & Shieldmaidens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
I'm starting to think the problem that is having a pc game with cross-platfrom with the consoles. I feel as if the balance patches could come much faster if not because consoles have the cert process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
After a fast round of balance changes two weeks ago, i dont want more fast and halfassed balance changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
King Pawn posted:Amusingly based on the first paragraph, the best way to beat Kambi is to win r1 and bleed them r2 until they're forced to use key combo cards. I actually haven't had Kambi blow up in my face yet and this might be why. If you win round 1 that gives you the power in round 2 to bleed their deck down to 0-2 cards. Although playing NG, Letho the good shepherd is fantastic at sheltering a row of vulnerable units with his gold body. Helps if you lure out their shackle on a different gold while the timer is ticking too. D.shackles are pretty much autoinclude at this point. They'll shut down that rooster. Also can shackle Hjalmar to at least limit him to 15.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:what do you mean "actually" i just wrote a sad lil story about milling then immediately realizing it was one of the most versatile cards in the game oh sorry, i misread your post then. also i can't tell if this thread actually thinks ge'els is bad or if that's a meme or something. the card gets run in most top level monster lists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
The acute issue with the previous patch was the sheer volume of changes. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to be on a 2-3 week cycle for balance changes, but each large patch needs a solid direction on behalf of the devs. It's impossible to do anything specific when you change each faction so drastically. You then open the door for many things being broken — which is obviously difficult to cover in a following patch without leaving new holes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
botany posted:oh sorry, i misread your post then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:The acute issue with the previous patch was the sheer volume of changes. From looking back on it, it seems mostly the original patch from the first stream, was designed to curb the big opening tempo plays that were dominant then, change str values of archetypes that weren't being played(mulligan, all of NR besides reavers, consume monster), and kill golden weathers. But then reddit had a big cry. People got in their heads that in a game where you win by having more points than your opponent you would run 3 cards with 0 str cause their thin out your deck. That Skellige was dead because Hunter was getting regressing, and QG lost veteran. So CDPR went back to the patch and just piled on more changes. They should have released the first version of the patch live, or put it on PTR for a couple of days rather than double dipping blindly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Reddit is stealing our enjoyment again. We can't keep letting them get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Reddit is stealing our enjoyment again. We can't keep letting them get away with it. Feel like MP game devs teams learn very quickly (usually through a similar visceral experience) to just ignore the internet except for bugfixes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
For all the whinging, the game isn't in that bad a state from where I'm sitting. There are players of every faction at 4k mmr. Pretty sure it would take just a few well-placed tweaks to break things open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
As far as I can tell the only pertinent way that skellington was buffed was 2 str to bears (not really a buff, either). The pertinent nerfs to nilfgaard were -2 to Peter, -2 to rainman, -2 to tibor, -1 to golems, -1 to calveit, -1 to cahir.Am I missing any? The interesting part from a game mechanics perapective is that these changes - 11 str over 3 rounds - made skellige tier 0 and made nilfgaard dumpster having been t1. How tenuous will balance be in this game? And the bigger question for me - are decks now too consistent with the mulligan changes, especially with cards like morkvarg that can't actually be answered in the game? No Wave fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:Feel like MP game devs teams learn very quickly (usually through a similar visceral experience) to just ignore the internet except for bugfixes. Every dev should watch MaRo's 20 years of magic 20 lessons talk, especially the lesson of 'your playerbase is bad and you shouldn't pay attention to their "suggestions"'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
just add a few neutrals with retaliations. cow is great but it's hard to make room for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
No Wave posted:As far as I can tell the only pertinent way that skellington was buffed was 2 str to bears (not really a buff, either). The pertinent nerfs to nilfgaard were -2 to Peter, -2 to rainman, -2 to tibor, -1 to golems, -1 to calveit, -1 to cahir.Am I missing any? You missed on the double nerf to golem, that they only come out after Calviet power is resolved, and the -2 to Novice. You can also add -2 to Ciri and -1 to Roach which were really important parts of the Spy deck. Also comedy nerf, the novice ambassador bug fix.(It was giving 12 power instead of 10). Considering the type of game Gwent is, just a couple of -1 changes can make a whole difference. Ciri is probably the best example because we can look at her history in the game overall. 6 in CB->7 in OB->5 right now. Ciri at 6 was pretty good and there was plenty of discussion on her being the best gold or not. Players like Lifecoach would just add her(and roach) to any deck, but Swim often argued that it wasn't useful or even wise. Right now neither of these two play her. The mulligan change is interesting. I think it has lead to a lot more greedy plays in general. Crones went from the first play you do, to the last play you should do, with the change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
I generally want less cards like crones and roach and the other blacklist cards in the game that have extremely high variance between the reward of being pulled from deck as a combo and the risk of being terrible if drawn. A lot of the best decks are always going to be the minefield of navigating risky mulligans. I know you can not play those cards but the point is a lot of them are so good you can't avoid playing them to climb ladder. I wouldn't mind more avallach type cards that can punish those builds and ideally make some of them less auto include.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:I generally want less cards like crones and roach and the other blacklist cards in the game that have extremely high variance between the reward of being pulled from deck as a combo and the risk of being terrible if drawn. A lot of the best decks are always going to be the minefield of navigating risky mulligans. I know you can not play those cards but the point is a lot of them are so good you can't avoid playing them to climb ladder. I wouldn't mind more avallach type cards that can punish those builds and ideally make some of them less auto include.  Besides the frustrating RNG aspect, it also makes mulligans completely routine. There's no real decision-making involved in mulliganing Foglets or whatever, you just have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:You missed on the double nerf to golem, that they only come out after Calviet power is resolved, and the -2 to Novice. You can also add -2 to Ciri and -1 to Roach which were really important parts of the Spy deck. Also comedy nerf, the novice ambassador bug fix.(It was giving 12 power instead of 10). If you look at that combo though, every single card had it's numerical value reduced AND several mechanics were changed. Golems now appear before Calveit picks a card, and thus actively gently caress with his card selection ability. Golds summoned off of leaders like Calveit also no longer pull in Roach. Probably either the mechanistic changes or the numerical changes would have been enough by themselves to beat down the combo, but piling both on at once was crippling not just to the specific combo but Nilfgaard's effectiveness in general. Lowering the value of must-include cards like Tibor and Peter was also a good idea by itself, but combined with everything else was a huge shock to Nilfgaard's playing potential. Mogwai still has me sold on Ciri, but she's an incredibly situational card. Her+Cantrella giving me a 2 card swing on a losing round is a godsend. Her straight value is very low though, and if you lose the first round she's drat near useless the rest of the game (ooh a 5 point gold body...). D.Shackles also completely wreck her, which more and more decks are carrying now. That one bronze d.shackle will cancel out her card advantage ability (the only real reason you play her) and leave you with a painfully weak 5 value card. You can shackle other golds too, but most golds either bring a large point value or have an effect that occurs instantly so they aren't completely dead weight after being shackled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:D.Shackles also completely wreck her, which more and more decks are carrying now. I mean you're still 5 points up on the exchange, it's not that much of a blowout. Succubus is now a staple of Monsters decks and that's much worse to get shackled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
King Pawn posted:I mean you're still 5 points up on the exchange, it's not that much of a blowout. Succubus is now a staple of Monsters decks and that's much worse to get shackled. They're down a bronze though and you're down a gold, which stings. Agree regarding the succubus, although in my experience she's more likely to appear late when it's easier to catch your opponent with their pants down without a shackle than Ciri. Still though, the continuous or delayed effect golds are not getting a lot of use currently. I'm kind of amazed when I see a Yen or Butterfly Triss pop up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
No Wave posted:And the bigger question for me - are decks now too consistent with the mulligan changes, especially with cards like morkvarg that can't actually be answered in the game? I've been wondering if a higher minimum number of bronze cards per deck might be a good change for the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Darke GBF posted:I've been wondering if a higher minimum number of bronze cards per deck might be a good change for the game. Not a terrible idea, honestly. I'd be interested to see how a 30 card minimum game might work. Probably easiest to just straight up require 20 bronze cards rather than 15, but you could add 3 bronze and 2 silver, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:41
|
|
Cat Army 
|
I think increasing the minimum deck size could be a good thing. Going from 25 to 30, but not increasing the amount of silvers/golds allowed would help with decks becoming slightly less efficient. That or make the number of silvers/golds allowed proportionate to the number of bronzes in your deck. Some kind of tiered system might work and would let those players that wanted to run 40 cards even have a few extra silvers and golds, maybe. Decks are just super efficient at the moment and I can't see it getting better over time unless CDPR addresses it and future proofs it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
NR would benefit so much from that, new golems would benefit... Seems rad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Link the amount of Gold/Silver cards you can put in your deck to how many bronze cards there are. So if you have a 20 bronze cards you get 2 golds/3 silvers 30 = 3 golds/4 silvers 35 = 4 gold/5 silvers or whatever So the bigger the deck the more powerful bullshit you can stick in there, but the more unwieldy it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Larger minimum deck size would be interesting but a lot of decks would just massively stack spells/weather They need a counter on those drat bears and for the axemen to not trigger from literally everything. If my Arachas Behemoths have a -1 for every consume causing them to die after 6 then the bears should be on the same system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Larger minimum deck size would be interesting but a lot of decks would just massively stack spells/weather Well that hardly works, they'd be a zero point play. Honestly, bust them to five strength. It opens up a ton of removal options, and bears weren't overpowered by any means at 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Or just make them banish when sent to the graveyard so when they die they stay dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
When it comes to bronze units, bears are a bit overpowered at 6 str but imo they'd work fine as a 5 strength unit with the same effect as now. They'd still be really strong but they aren't the cause of the problem, just the most visible (and maybe annoying) part of it. Axemen are worse (at the very least they shouldn't be agile). And there's also the whole issue of weather spam (well, just frost really), which imo is the real problem. I think the other problems are just a tuning issue, but weather still remains an actual design problem... fixing it isn't going to be as simple as adjusting a few numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Weather reaply doesn't bother me much. Everyone runs a counter too it so it's a check against hyper specialising your deck. Only low rank though so maybe im missing something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Frost will probably be changed to damage highest & lowest unit on the row by one, to bring it back in line with Fog and Rain. I'd be okay with that. Bears should really be 5 strength, Axemen become less of an issue if Frost is changed, Hjalmar should lose one or two points as well, the card is ridiculous with Skellige's easy access to damage. Alternatively the LoU could simply be buffed to 7 and Skellige would immediately be less dominant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Hjalmar dropping 2 points would put it in line with Tibor and Kayran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
ShowTime posted:I think increasing the minimum deck size could be a good thing. Going from 25 to 30, but not increasing the amount of silvers/golds allowed would help with decks becoming slightly less efficient. That or make the number of silvers/golds allowed proportionate to the number of bronzes in your deck. Some kind of tiered system might work and would let those players that wanted to run 40 cards even have a few extra silvers and golds, maybe. Decks with more cards will eventually start to show up naturally rather then forced. The cookie cutter 25 is derived from the lack of bronze choices that have no way to get out of your deck easily. Right now there is a NR deck that runs 30-37 cards that seems to work mostly fine, due to NR card pool having a lot of stuff that tutors other cards or come out in trios at once.(It also helps that nobody is playing scorch or GIgni).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
No, decks will almost always go for the minimum amount of cards to increase consistency. The only ones that wouldn't are decks that have lots of ways to deckthin but there aren't quite enough cards in Gwent yet to do that for 30+ card decks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
RatHat posted:No, decks will almost always go for the minimum amount of cards to increase consistency. The only ones that wouldn't are decks that have lots of ways to deckthin but there aren't quite enough cards in Gwent yet to do that for 30+ card decks. That's what I said?  Though from the latest interviews with Rethaz it seems the game is going towards being more bronze heavy, than gold or silver, and it breaking the 6/4 ruleset is not in the plans. But most factions do have the building blocks for larger decks already around, but some seem to be further in design than others. NR has all the cards it needs to make it work, and it is making it work even if the faction overall is underpowered. Nilfgaard also has a good card pool to make larger decks, but I think the popularity of Calviet spies pre-patch may have stifled some deck building creativity, and now people aren't very interested in the faction overall because well, everything got nerfed now nobody wants to play Nilfgaard, except for Garrunah and Mogwai. ST and Skellige can probably also benefit down the road of having more cards in the deck that synergize with stuff like discard and mulligan. Rather see stuff come more naturally like the NR deck that is around currently, than having CDPR making Reno nonsense or breaking the ruleset to push/force deck sizes. Just more cards that expand and deepen the gameplay and players will eventually get there by themselves. I also wonder if CDPR is okay and wants decks to be super efficient and consistent for esports aspirations, as it sets it apart clearly from Hearthstone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
This current meta is so lame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:16
|
|
