• 0

    posted a message on Coinflip idea. I know we've heard them all by now lol

    I won't get into why I don't like this fix nor what I think the fix should be - I have been over that numerous times before in other threads - but I will agree 100% that the coinflip issue is being demonstrated in neon lights in arena mode. If CDPR don't finally acknowledge it actually is the huge issue the vast majority of the player base has been saying it is, that needs fixing immediately as it is turning their new hope into a one round clown fiesta, then they are seriously having a laugh at our expense. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

     

    Quote from Banedon >>

     

    What should be changed with I:Sabbath is to cap it in some way. The card should be strong if unanswered, maybe be worth ~25+ points, but it shouldn't win the game. To compensate for this capping it should have a higher floor. I suggested something like 7 strength, duel up to three times, heal by 4 after each duel a while ago - I continue to think that's a good solution (numbers might need tweaking).

     Its an excellent solution. 
     
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

    Good arguments on both sides of the fence. I have been convinced the card isn't OP as it can be fairly easily beaten. However, that doesn't mean its design is not problematic. The fact that if it sticks it is an auto win isn't really a good thing imo. 

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

    Fair point Banedon, if the opponent leads off with a really big value card then Sabbath ends up being just a five point gold. But I don't think it will be long before the standard deck running Sabbath also runs cards that deal with those really big units (e.g. scorch). Most already run cards like parasite which can be used to deal 12 damage. As you say, for this to happen you probably misplayed.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

    I love the concept of Imlereth Sabbath. I really do. I just think he needs a few tweaks so that he isn't just a case of "does opponent have counter? If no, win game". 

    As for those arguing he is great for the game because he is lots of fun to play, I would suggest one of the reasons you find him so fun to play is that when you get him to stick he absolutely steam rolls your opponent. Who doesn’t love an easy win? But do easy wins really make good Gwent? Lets be honest, the card is already at the point that come round 3 if the opponent can't counter it they insta-forfeit. I don't see how having a card that does that pretty much every time it is played and not countered is a good thing.

    For those saying it isn't OP because it is easily countered, I would say that any card that forces deck building and game play to change to counter it specifically is also not good for the game. People are already adapting to make sure their decks always have counters to the card, and any time you play against monsters you know you have to keep those cards in hand just in case, or it will be auto lose. This leads to sub-optimal play against monsters just due to the threat.

    And yes, there are other cards that can be considered in the same light. Borkh and Succubus for instance. Yet neither card is near as devastating as Sabbath if uncountered, and both cards provide no value other than their own points if countered before their timer goes off. Sabbath always goes off at least once. As a result, neither card sees a lot of play. Sabbath on the other hand has a pretty good floor for points, and a ridiculously high ceiling. He will see a lot of play as a result.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

     

    Quote from chrisofriviera >>

    He is a high risk high reward card unlike most cards in Gwent, making him very fun to me. There are still many other strong more reliable gold that aren't counterable as easily.

     He really isn't that high risk. At worst you should be getting 12+ points from him, assuming the opponent has at least a 7 str unit on the board when he is played. So his floor isn't particularly low. And his ceiling is ridiculously high. He demands the opponent respond to him, as if you don't you will lose the game. It is that binary.
    The reason he feels high risk is because currently most decks that run him are running him as their win condition. The supporting deck around the card isn't strong enough on its own to win without him sticking for a bit. 
    Don't get me wrong, I like the card concept. But it either needs to have a much lower floor (i.e. change it to be if on board at turn start, duel enemy), or it needs some level of capping (i.e., change it so instead of basically healing itself every turn plus adding armour, it just adds 2 armour, or only ever heals by 1, or has a timer so it only activates a few times). 
     
    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Imleritth : Sabbat is a beast

    I honestly only see one problem with the card. Its downside (i.e. gets removed immediately) will still likely generate a reasonable point swing to make it an ok card to carry. Given the potential upside, its downside needs to be much more severe.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Henry van Attre on enemies

    I had this happen to me once as well, but couldn't recall if the opponent may have done something to boost the unit up to 2 or not. Anyway, as a result I have just stopped concealing any units of 2 or less strength now. No point, I would rather have them revealed.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Group Therapy! Release your frustration here

    Lol! Love it. Calling out people for being rubbish for running a tech choice that doesn't see a lot of play atm that wins them the game.

    FWIW, Auckes is not a terrible choice atm. People are starting to run more engine cards again. Archespores, nekkers, enforcers, brigades, greatswords and longships, mangonels, I'm even starting to see some farseers and kaedweni siege support again. It can absolutely be game winning. Sooo, they are actually getting rewarded for being ahead of the curve a bit and responding to the meta.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Dagon Avatar Top 10000

    The point is IBTG enjoys getting a reaction and passing himself off as smarter than others. That's why he does it. He wants you to think he is an a$$hole. You'll be amazed how little he will post if you don't respond to what you don't like from him.

    Despite that, he does make valid points amongst his vitriol. In this case, the fact that the top of the ranked ladder can be achieved just by playing lots of games is worthy of commenting on and questioning whether it is a good thing. I completely agree that OP should be encouraged for what he is aiming for and currently succeeding in (getting dagon avatar). And rewarded for loving and playing the game so much. But I also think that reward shouldn't necessarily be in the form of a high rank on ladder given the win/ loss ratio.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Only A**holes above 4000mmr?

    One factor worth considering - the higher the MMR, the higher the consequences of a loss, the higher the tilt factor. These same players may be happy to gg in lower mmr ranks but as the losses pile up and mmr stagnates may not be so keen.

    As an aside, I used to gg all the time unless I played against mill or someone spamming emotes. But as my patience for playing against the same decks all the damn time has waned, so has my desire to gg. That may be another factor at high mmr as the range of decks being played also constricts.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why does everyone hate Veterans?

    Banedon, you make fair points. Obviously having a scenario where these decks were removed (and nothing replaced them) would be terrible for diversity. And not everybody feels the same way I do about these decks, and nor do I expect them to. So basically, take what I say as just an opinion on where I think gwent can improve to make it more interesting overall.

    Clearly I am a little jaded with the game atm, and the rise in popularity of decks such as these is one of the key reasons. While I do indeed play decks I find more interesting, consistently coming up against these linear decks is not making for a particularly fun experience for me right now.

    Personally I would very much like to see CDPR develop more viable archetypes that revolve around synergistic playstyles that build over time (and allow opponents an opportunity to disrupt them) and make the more point vomit type decks a little less powerful at higher levels. For mine the spies archetype is still the gold standard. Though I do like the current deathwish archetype also, and while it is currently underpowered, the moonlight archetype has a lot of promise. I am also a fan of the handbuff archetype though it too is very underpowered atm. NR machines is another pretty interesting one. Each of these decks provides a really nice mix of some set up, control elements and power plays/ tempo swings. To me that is ideal gwent. But, again, my idea of ideal won't be everyone elses.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why does everyone hate Veterans?

    Consume monsters is pretty tragic. It has one win condition - nekkers. Everything revolves around creating as many nekkers as possible so as to have a third round that just outputs ridiculous amounts of points in a small number of cards. I'm sure consume players will argue there is some cool things about the build, but I don't get it outside of being nigh unbeatable if it isn't disrupted.

    And yes, most swarm decks are pretty much the same issue. Just spit out as many units as possible so you can then play a couple of cards that boost all the units. Which is why I don't enjoy playing them for long either.

    I know it sounds like I am just picking on everything and being overly negative, but these are just such simple game plans that it is hard for me to really feel satisfied either playing them (auto pilot) or playing against them (outside of nekkers, its not really about having counters so much as it is a question of can you vomit enough points yourself).

    As for engine decks that don't interact with an opponents board, there aren't many of these. GS + longship can be thought of as one. It is probably the most interesting designed SK archetype atm. Interruptible, but very high value if not disrupted. Handbuff can be considered along these lines as well, though most handbuff decks run control elements (e.g. swordmasters). The important thing here is they are able to be disrupted. There is an element of strategy involved. Most of the decks being run atm don't really require much strategy.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why does everyone hate Veterans?

    Fair enough, I don't mind people giving cheeky responses :-) 

    But I will say that OP asked why (essentially) people don't like point vomit play styles. I gave a valid answer. Perhaps you disagree and feel these types of decks are really interesting and challenging, I don't know. Please feel free to disagree with my take at your leisure. And feel free to like such game styles. But its not for me and it isn't out of elitism as was suggested. Its just boring (at least for me).

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why does everyone hate Veterans?
    Quote from jackson_sgood >>

    I think this whole "point vomit" stuff is just a reflex of gamer community behavior that values "playing on hard mode" as some kind of badge of how bad ass you are.

     Not at all. It is very much about interactivity of the game and having it be more about setting up plays (and disrupting the opponents) than just slapping cards down. It adds a level of richness (and yes, skill) to the game, and makes it more a battle between two people. The "point vomit" decks don't really give a rats about what the opponent does. Just spit out more points than the opponent any way you can. No real strategy. No real skill. The most challenging aspect is making sure you don't mess up the order you play a couple of cards (e.g., don't play a resurrect without having something to resurrect - really difficult stuff like that). May as well be playing against a bot. Boring.
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.