Conceptual constructive criticism

[Alexandr-87]

Conceptual constructive criticism

Hello, dear developers and gamers!

I think if developers use some concept (weather card, siege machine, damage, etc) in the game the game should realize somehow that concept.

For example:
1. The fog wouldn't harm close combat warrior in reality, But it would harm ranged and siege units.
So why not change its function or rename the card so there could be a logical connection between them?
2. Ballista damage units by 1 or 2 points. But clan brokvar hunter can damage a unit by 3. The question is: who is more powerful: ballista or a hunter?
Just switch these two cards' functions and everything will be more or less realistic.
3. Gwent is a card game you play via PC (or another platform). In every card game, no one is allowed to interfere opponent's deck, no one and never. That is the basic rule for any card game.
Regis, who can go to anyone's deck and consume a unit there is a nonsense. At least that unit should be allowed to give some fight back before dying, right? Or you think that BS Commando wouldn't mind being consumed? I mean that card has some power. Where has it gone for? My suggestion here is that consuming should work only at the graveyard.
4. Almost all NR Siege machines are agile units now. That is not logically.
5. We now have an interesting mulligan system, we have the abilities of some units referring to top card, bottom card of the deck, etc. I suggest visualizing somehow the deck itself. And decide whether or not a player can review his deck in a game (or at least review those things in his deck he was already informed about).
I mean for me personally it is hard to remember which card went where even if there is a rule regulating it. And I can't concentrate on the game because of it. I suggest introducing a deck screen in the game (like a graveyard). This screen might look like a sequence of cards which are to appear after discarding and mulligans. And if someone else's card puts two base copies of something on the top of your deck (or something else has changed in the deck) the deck screen will display it so I couldn't forget about it. I mean, in Gwent players compete in strategies and not in the volume of their "operative memory". And the game would become more convenient to play.

Thank you for reading.
Dear developers, please consider it.

 

[nunqmuo]

Hi. Most of your issues are lore-based. I personally agree that lore inconsistencies are ruining the mood. I'm very OCD person and lore inconsistency is one of the strongest OCD's of mine. But alas from my own experience you will get an answer similar to this - "gameplay > lore".

 

[Draconifors]

2. Ballista damage units by 1 or 2 points. But clan brokvar hunter can damage a unit by 3. The question is: who is more powerful: ballista or a hunter?

Ballistae are capable of either ignoring armour (reinforced ballista) or damaging any number of opponents that are at the same strength (normal ballista).
Clan Brokvar Hunter is capable of neither of those things; he always damages a single target, and if that target has 3 or more armour the hunter does zero damage.


I agree that Regis: Higher Vampire is rather annoying, but since he is neutral and available for all decks it's at least fair.

 

[KasumiGoto]

Alexandr-87

Also, I think Regis is fine. It's the only counter for Spell ST for now. He can also be really useless when all you do is consume a vicovaro medic.

In closed beta frost was applied only to melee row, fog to ranged and rain to siege, but it was changed.

In my opinion you care way too much about the cards being realistic. Balance > lore/logic.

 

[Alexandr-87]

Ballistae are capable of either ignoring armour (reinforced ballista) or damaging any number of opponents that are at the same strength (normal ballista).
Clan Brokvar Hunter is capable of neither of those things; he always damages a single target, and if that target has 3 or more armour the hunter does zero damage.


I agree that Regis: Higher Vampire is rather annoying, but since he is neutral and available for all decks it's at least fair.

Yeah. But the Hunter will 100% pick the unarmored targets, and stil cause more damage than reinforced ballista (without crewmen).
True, about Regis. But NR, which I play, are a lot more vulnerable to him because he is a perfect card to disrupt trio ability, or interaction between machines and crewmen.
But you've got a point.

 

[4RM3D]

Edited & deleted posts. Please focus on the discussion, not on the person's writing style.

 

[idomyownstunts]

Lore? Logic? Baby by the end it'll be like third rate cosplayers appearing at a newly opened McDonalds. Cardboard cutouts ftw.

 

[kitsuneae]

Yeah. But the Hunter will 100% pick the unarmored targets, and stil cause more damage than reinforced ballista (without crewmen).
True, about Regis. But NR, which I play, are a lot more vulnerable to him because he is a perfect card to disrupt trio ability, or interaction between machines and crewmen.
But you've got a point.

Reinforced balista are made to break walls. Archers aren't. A ballista hitting an unarmored guy will do more than an archer. Arrows are actually small and kill due to blood loss, not massive damage. Ballista bolts are HUGE and deal blunt force trauma. They destroy via crushing damage.

Really, though, I'm sure the reasons the reinforced ballista is only a 1 is because it ignores armor and happens every turn. Now, a reininforced ballista is bigger than normal due to the armor on it and will likely have heavier strings. It would be more realistic if it actually did two damage but fired every other turn instead of every turn. It does NOT ignore armor! Frankly, it would break the armor then any damage would transfer through to the squishy person underneath.

Keeping it at six points while the regular ballista is just 3 makes sense to me!

I also wish machines that fire repeatedly had a risk of breaking. Stuff goes wrong, ya know? Maybe it just fires for three or four times before it breaks. From there dropping "fresh crew" beside them would fix it. It may not be logical to add but it's still something on my mind.

By the way: bronze troops need to have less powerful abilities!

Notice that the bronze troops have no specific names? This is because they are average joes. There's hundreds or thousands of them. They aren't legendary heroes. A single nobleman/elite is still just one of a few hundred just like him. They aren't anyone special (except to their mothers). I feel the rarity within bronze should represent social caste, not power. Thus a knight is rarer than a siege supporter who is, in turn, rarer than an archer which is rarer than a foot soldier. Foot soldiers are a dime a dozen. Archers take training, but are still common. Siege supporters need training + education. Knights have training, education, and a pedigree. Still Nobody is legendary level.

Silvers have names in general wherever the troop has a name. Cleaver. Aelirenn. Weavess. Exceptions exist where the creature doesn't have an actual given name (ex: botchling, fiend). These guys are special "legendary" peopple/critters, but not meant to be as strong as a gold. These should be your wreckers with continuous abilities. They are rare and nasty but can be stopped with conventional means. These should be your Shackle bait, not some random bronze troop.

Golds nearly always have names. Triss Merigold. Geralt. Borkh. They are legendary. These should have super nasty one off abilities worse than any found on a bronze troop. The fact they are untouchable is correct: they need to feel like a force you have to go out of your way to stop. Something that normally couldn't be knocked down a peg.

Personally I think a single random joe from nowhere shouldn't be able to stomp Geralt four times over. Even with the help of some armor and a tactician (which is what a general actually is). Fifty random joes, maybe. But just one? That's why an army is an army and not one crazy axeman. Flavor wise, the current meta doesn't work.

 

[Alexandr-87]

Personally I think a single random joe from nowhere shouldn't be able to stomp Geralt four times over

That's why an army is an army and not one crazy axeman

Totally agreed. I'd like it if developers would have regulated the functions of each card according to it's name and status.