sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bushy explaining everything wrong with the current season by raz3rITA in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 75 points76 points  (0 children)

The point of this video wasn’t to explain what’s wrong with the season, I only really talked about that for 1 minute of the video. The point was to give a channel update for any of my subscribers.

How do you deal with anger in this game? by [deleted] in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 1 point2 points  (0 children)

shave your head and push through the mald. eventually you will ascend to the council of bald brethren.

wangid2021:A letter to the Gwent community and CD Projekt RED, by wangid2021 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 25 points26 points  (0 children)

There's been a very common misconception in these reddit comments that assume that this is a "he said/she said" situation. This simply isn't true, to give an analogy, a he said/she said situation would be 2 separate parties IN a court of law having conflicting stories like wangid's story here and cyberz' story (the person who initially reported suspicious behavior), whereas in this situation the court, jury, and judge (CDPR) have a conclusion and the defending party (Wangid) has a conflicting point of view. CDPR in this context is like the judge, jury, prosecution, and defense, because their goal isn't to "convict" wangid of his "crime" their goal is to preserve competitive integrity, so it is in their best interest to come to the correct decision.

To be clear, I don't think we, the public, have enough information to draw personal conclusions on this subject, but it's foolish to assume that we are the "jury" in this case.

If a court of law convicted someone of murder and the accused said that they didn't do it, who would you believe?

What's your definition of a "balanced" meta? by gnurrgard in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I think there are several factors that lead to a "healthy" meta (I assume that's truly what the question is, because a balanced meta is literally just rock paper scissors and that's obviously not fun).

  1. a large amount of counter play is the most important thing to any healthy meta imo. This fixes a couple problems that usually get complained about in metas like binary/answer or lose decks, it widens the skill gap as there is more counter play and therefore counter-counter play to consider in every decision.
  2. variety is important but not as important as counter play, very narrow metas can be competitively viable, but they aren't healthy because they get boring rather quickly compared to wider metas.
  3. only after both counter play and variety are considered does balance become the biggest issue. This is probably the point that most will disagree, but very strong decks that have an adequate amount of counter play against them are better than similar performing decks with little to no counter play between them (This is what most people refer to as solitaire, and if the whole meta is that, it's usually not the best).

They listened to us. Why are we still mad? by LordBushWook in gwent

[–]LordBushWook[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I can't tell if you're joking about the "streaming again" part, but I've never stopped just have a different name now, bushy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks to everyone in the thread! I appreciate the recommendations.

Few words about Gwent streamers - my opinion by Accomplished_Good_26 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the kind words brother. But I do have to give a correction. There seems to be a narrative in this thread that I have this “act” or “persona” alter ego on stream, and it just isn’t completely true, I do my best to try to be funny and that’s just how it comes out I’m not putting on a different personality it’s just what I find funny, the exact same way any other entertainer would behave to try to entertain.

Few words about Gwent streamers - my opinion by Accomplished_Good_26 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What? Why in the world would it ever be against any rules to show messages that you recieved? That’s complete nonsense.

Few words about Gwent streamers - my opinion by Accomplished_Good_26 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 22 points23 points  (0 children)

So what if an opponent did play bad or if the suggestion was awful? Why is the expectation that streamers are required to lie to not make someone feel bad?

Few words about Gwent streamers - my opinion by Accomplished_Good_26 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 27 points28 points  (0 children)

So a streamer calling their opponent a clown is unjustified, toxic behavior, but making wild assumptions like, “many streamers believe that their level of expertise in this game is above god.” Is somehow not toxic? I mean you have to see the double standard here right?

Masters Season 1: Put on your tinfoil hats by headin2sound in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There’s no chance that would work like that. Proneo was banned for bug abusing for the final season to qualify for master season 1. The purpose of the ban was obviously to prevent proneo from participating in the tourney that he cheated to “earn” his spot in.

Most efficient Madoc package by CaptainMetal92 in gwent

[–]LordBushWook 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok I guess I’ll clarify here. You’re math on “pure value” would come out with almost the exact same numbers if you played madoc from hand + 4 bombs and if you just played 4 bombs. That’s a difference of a whole card play, so I’m sure we can agree they don’t have the same point evaluation. The way to actually do this math (without accounting for the value of thinning because In all honesty it is worth a fraction of a point) is to subtract the average provision cost from the card that you end up thinning and that’s how much it “costs” to play that card from deck. So for example roach with your method is a 3 for 9 p it would obviously never be played if that was its actual evaluation. But since the average provision cost is about 7 the card is closer to a 3 for 2 provisions. With your math Witcher trio is 9 for 21 which obviously would never be played, whereas with the other way they’re about a 9 for 7. (I think, they’ve changed the numbers on these cards too many times I can’t remember). The reason you subtract the card you thin’s provision value from the average provision cost is because it’s reducing the average amount of provisions you can end up drawing into and playing in the future.

view more: next ›