Hello all. Would you call this game fun? or completely broken because of locations?

[Demnchi]

It just annoys me that to be that competitive you have to give up deck building. Its part of the games fun. You are forced to only play a certain way.

As someone who plays quite a lot of card games and focuses purely on making fun and interesting decks, i can understand where you are coming from. Many times I feel like I have to compromise my deck a bit to address the meta. However, that's only because of me wanting to actually win every game with those decks. There are times when I don't care about winning, so I just ignore the meta to do something cool.

Having said that, my suggestion would be to look at the options available to you and then look at where you could possibly fit that into your deck. For example, Sinkhole acts as a control tool in addition to being tech against locations. If you look at your deck and look at the cards you're using for control, you could likely find a way to fit in a copy or two of sinkhole. If you really are running into that many locations and losing because of them, then that should up your win rate without having to completely sacrifice your deck building. Often times I'll make a 40 card deck and then just add two copies of a meta counter. So long as its not an aggro deck, it seems to work out fairly well.

That's just my advice until better options become available. Hopefully in the future we will have plenty of other ways to interact with locations, perhaps maybe even in Lost Lands pt2 and 3.

[Kross]

Another thing to note is that I'm not using either of those heroes right now, nor am I using locations, and I'm at 330. I'm piloting a Gwen deck that punishes players that use tala, lance, and sosilo + Knight and/or Wisp strategies.

I want to share this game I played last night against the well-known, high level player, TJ Streetsahead. I'm only sharing this here because I think its a STRONG testament to the fact that the cards in your deck do not matter nearly as much as the pilot. If you're outplayed, you're outplayed, and having all the tools you need to win isn't enough if you make bad decisions in-game!

[jonmaciel]

I want to share this game I played last night against the well-known, high level player, TJ Streetsahead. I'm only sharing this here because I think its a STRONG testament to the fact that the cards in your deck do not matter nearly as much as the pilot. If you're outplayed, you're outplayed, and having all the tools you need to win isn't enough if you make bad decisions in-game!

Gwen is already a bad matchup against lance regardless of the deck makeup. As a rogue, lance has access to both stop thief and anarchic looting. Since gwen needs those weapons to be effective, you're already at a major disadvantage.

[Kross]

Gwen is already a bad matchup against lance regardless of the deck makeup. As a rogue, lance has access to both stop thief and anarchic looting. Since gwen needs those weapons to be effective, you're already at a major disadvantage.

Not with this deck. It currently runs 8 weapons and 2 Lily, and 6 cards that get around stealth if you count Retreat, and thats not including The Perfect Shot + Hunter's Gambit

[Veles]

It just annoys me that to be that competitive you have to give up deck building. Its part of the games fun. You are forced to only play a certain way.

That is true for all major card games. High level competitive play and fun deck building do not go together. You either enjoy winning sometimes with very odd deck, winning average with somewhat creative deck or going for max win rate with well tested most powerful deck.

[Fristar]

Have you tried creating an alternate account? With two accounts, you can play fewer games on the competitive scene and more on the alt, without jeopardizing your standing.

I could if the board wants to give me all the cards I have purchased on my first account to match my second account so I don't have to go buy them all again.

[Nijjis]

Another example of cheap combos with location play.

KA Cutenew3dy vs Fristar.

Turn 3 has a 4/5 ally on board. And you say locations aren't a problem? if they actually cost something to put down then this BS wouldn't exist.
Fact is there is a problem but everyone wont say it cause they like using the cheap system of locations to get a massive advantage.
And yes in almost every single game I have played over 300 my opponent is using a cheap location combo cause that what this game has come to.
It used to be more fun when people had to build decks to be good, and balanced to win. Not anymore, just use a location deck and cheap combo it away.
I think its laughable that you guys don't see a problem with the location system.
How many top ranked people here are not ever using locations in there decks over 300 rating? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is zero

I initially had an uneasy feeling about locations, but I feel they have been successfully implemented with little to no negative impact on the game.

When I finished rank 1 with my kiruth location deck, I don't believe I came across very many location decks, or at least none that were problematic. Also the kiruth location wasn't always a win condition and in a handful of games I sacrificed all of them. I really don't feel that locations have had an overwhelming impact on the meta, which I was initially very afraid of.

I think the fact that some decks get no benefit from locations Is a good thing not a bad thing. Although it leaves these decks with less options to counter locations it is better than the alternative: if most / every deck could benefit from locations every deck might potentially run locations. This would seriously impact the meta in a bad way. Basically it would turn into a locations arm race... All decks may need to run locations + bad Santa to help fill up hand / dig for a location to replace the opponents

[Fristar]

I initially had an uneasy feeling about locations, but I feel they have been successfully implemented with little to no negative impact on the game.

When I finished rank 1 with my kiruth location deck, I don't believe I came across very many location decks, or at least none that were problematic. Also the kiruth location wasn't always a win condition and in a handful of games I sacrificed all of them. I really don't feel that locations have had an overwhelming impact on the meta, which I was initially very afraid of.

I think the fact that some decks get no benefit from locations Is a good thing not a bad thing. Although it leaves these decks with less options to counter locations it is better than the alternative: if most / every deck could benefit from locations every deck might potentially run locations. This would seriously impact the meta in a bad way. Basically it would turn into a locations arm race... All decks may need to run locations + bad Santa to help fill up hand / dig for a location to replace the opponents

The current minimal usable locations favor certain decks only.
Where is a good location for someone who likes ravagers?
Priests? etc.
They came out with a half done idea, cause they are incapable of getting cards out fast enough to prevent people from moving on to other games.
Locations should be removed and reworked to a more general sense of use and not such specific uses by specific deck builds only.
Locations could have been a much more improvement to the game then they were.

[Nijjis]

I tend to agree with all of what you said except possibly that they should be removed. It should be much easier to get a read on locations and the adjustments they might need by having them in the game. If you take them out and it goes back to a play test server then the progress towards developing them would certainly decrease. That being said I would agree that they were released prematurely.

They seem far from a finished product... Many tweaks to the existing locations and or the release of new cards that interact with them is definitely needed, because like you mentioned: only a handful of them are viable.

The balancing issues I imagine will be quite a headache! If they are changed like you suggested and are made to be generally more applicable... This should increase their usage rates and lead to a bigger impact on the meta (which I think I'm against). I prefer a world in which locations have a small handful of applications in a rather limited amount of decks, reducing their impact on the meta. The moment locations become standard for the majority of decks, I believe, will be when things get out of hand. If this happens every deck will need to run locations / and or counters. And then designing new cards will be negatively impacted by the restraints placed upon them by locations

[Nijjis]

All things being considered I think the game is still fun, not broken at all. I think gondorian and wulven or whoever is ultimately responsible for balancing has done a good job. They do a good job of patching things up before it has too big of an impact on the meta. For example: the nerfs to ember Jerry and victor more recently were both probably good for the game.. As anything that encourages solo decks like mill stalker is bad.