Is the Card Limit for Silver/Gold Cards Still Relevant?

[4RM3D]

Is the Card Limit for Silver/Gold Cards Still Relevant?

Gwent has a deck limit of 6 epic (silver) cards and 4 legendary (gold) cards, unlike games like Hearthstone, where you can fill your whole deck with legendary cards. The limit in Gwent made sense when gold cards had their immunity and bronze cards weren't as strong yet (snowball effect). But know, with the gold immunity patch, it does make me wonder:

Do we still need the card limit for silver and gold cards?

The strength of a card doesn't solely come from its ability, but rather from its synergy with other cards. Gold cards enable synergy, but usually don't have synergy themselves. This means that adding too many gold cards would eventually reduce the effectiveness of your deck. At least, I think this would be the case. Thus the first question leads to another question:

Can bronze synergy overpower a semi full gold deck?

With the current game state, I actually do have my doubts. However, with some small tweaks, this might actually be the case.

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

Given the present situation where Golds lost their immunities, the answer to your 2nd question is: "Probably yes".
Especially if you consider a scenario with weak Golds and powerful Bronzes.

As for the 1st question, my answer would be: "Yes, because the weakness of Golds is temporary and will be corrected in the next season".
This last patch was a little rushed, aside from the things the hotfix corrected a lot of Gold cards were not reworked while losing immunity, the result is before your eyes.
Since Golds and Silvers are Legendary/Epics, I doubt the devs want to create a system where cheap cards are more worthy than very rare ones.

"Interaction" is fine, but I think we have too much of it right now.

 

[Guest 4021160]

My first reaction was. WUT? We absolutely need restrictions. What the hell do you mean.
But then I forced myself to read your reasoning 2 more times. Then one more time.

And I don't know. I really don't know. I started to doubt it as well.

If CDPR really has plans for this Immunity Gospel flowing around the forum, I'd stick to restricted number of golds.

If not. Well then... it's your game do what you will with it. But please do not forget people from closed beta payed for a different product.

 

[partci]

We can go with a more elegant solution - you have 10 slots for these cards - distribute them however you want: 10 Silvers, 10 Golds, 5 Silvers and 5 Golds, whatever.

But I think a limitation is, indeed, needed - there are some Golds (especially the Neutrals now) that are way too disruptive and if you mix them too much it MIGHT become an overkill, despite the Bronzes supremacy.

... not to mention the Silvers...

 

[Archpriest]

Absolutely and unequivocally "'yes".
The "gold immunity removal" argument against it is actually a feeble one. Let's take for example current NR. The best decks run "consistency and draw improving" golds and silvers like John Natalis, Shani, Dijkstra, Stennis, Nenneke, Musters, etc. Now, if I'm allowed to add, let's say, two more golds and silvers I instantly bring Ves, RNR and other stuff like that.
Gold and silvers aren't super cards, they're the best enablers. The core of the deck and its best cards are always reliable bronzes. Without limit, I'll just probably have a super efficient deck, ONE deck, in the game with many enablers and a few bronzes. Gwent is actually a quite simple game: execute your plan while disrupting and denying that of an opponent. Limiting the enablers keeps diversity, or resemblance of it, in the game.

 

[Lyserus]

We definitely still need restriction.

I feel like CDPR is trying make less "safe zone" when we use cards, that's why the immunity is removed.
Then, the role of silver and gold is now about "monstrous brute force" or/and "special effect", mainly special effect.

Don't get me wrong, many silver/gold now do not have advantage from bronze at all, but we can see some of it become the key to certain builds and are shining in this patch, the other cards just need some buff in later patches.

And, if not else, I dare you that even they are not that good now, if I use a 10 gold 10 silver 5 bronze deck against any of your current deck in game, I will always win. And that is a way more lethal issue, for the gap between players at different collection progess will become massive, and slowly turn to a truly P2W for new comers.

 

[Draconifors]

Restrictions are definitely necessary.

Gold cards are no longer immune to damage, but IMO that mainly affects Golds with a continuous effect (and poor vanilla Geralt). Golds like Triss: Butterfly Spell, Ciri and Succubus were hit hard by the loss of immunity, but Golds with only Deploy effects remain more or less the same (not counting card-specific changes). Caretaker still resurrects a unit, Vilgefortz still destroys & draws, Dandelion still buffs.

Silver cards also need a limit, as their effects are in general quite powerful, more so than Bronze card effects.


Having said all that, I do think this idea

We can go with a more elegant solution - you have 10 slots for these cards - distribute them however you want: 10 Silvers, 10 Golds, 5 Silvers and 5 Golds, whatever.

could work. Sometimes there are more than six Silvers you'd like to include in a deck, but only three or even fewer Golds that seem like they would work. Or perhaps there aren't six Silvers you'd want, but a fifth Gold would be great.


As for this question

Can bronze synergy overpower a semi full gold deck?

I think the answer is 'yes', although with emphasis on can. Some Bronzes have such great and strong synergies that they could indeed be stronger than Gold cards just thrown together. But if the Gold deck is carefully constructed... that is a trickier question.


Lastly, if there were no restrictions on Silver and Gold card counts, there wouldn't be much of a need to consider one's card choices. I personally think that having to sometimes make decisions between card X and card Y while deck building is a good thing. It adds its own "flavour" to the game.

 

[RickMelethron]

Gwent has a deck limit of 6 epic (silver) cards and 4 legendary (gold) cards, unlike games like Hearthstone, where you can fill your whole deck with legendary cards.

in hearthstone, legendaries aren't made to be superior cards... most of them are either terrible or too slow

Do we still need the card limit for silver and gold cards?
The strength of a card doesn't solely come from its ability, but rather from its synergy with other cards. Gold cards enable synergy, but usually don't have synergy themselves. This means that adding too many gold cards would eventually reduce the effectiveness of your deck. At least, I think this would be the case. Thus the first question leads to another question:

the powercreep introduced with the previous update is what screwed over golds and silvers... still, the golds and silver that do see play are much better than bronzes. philippa herself is a 16 tempo card, which no bronze can match at the moment (aside for buffed temerians, i suppose)
if bronzes really were as strong as silver and gold cards, people would be playing less than 6 silvers and 4 golds. as far as i know, that doesn't happen.

Can bronze synergy overpower a semi full gold deck?
With the current game state, I actually do have my doubts. However, with some small tweaks, this might actually be the case.

"no, but if the devs powercreep bronze units, they can"
well... the opposite is true as well. with some nerfs to bronze cards, golds and silvers will be much more powerful than them

 

[devivre]

I agree, we definitely need restrictions! Otherwise it might get a lot harder for new players to succeed without investing money.

However, a change for CA spies was suggested a few days ago (https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...-drawing-spies). That would give us one more silver silver slot, which could be interesting. But for now, I'm fine with the current limitations.

 

[Iuliandrei]

I don't think gold immunity was the reason for the limit, after all silvers didn't have immunity and they were still limited. Unlike other games gold cards are on a higher power curve than bronze or silvers but while i agree the last patch created a small problem i think it needs a different solution.

My solution would be to tone down the power level of some bronzes and make (some) gold units more impactful. I like synergy decks but i'm afraid that would make certain golds mandatory for a specific archetype, having 1 is ok but i wouldn't want to see a default 4 gold package auto-include for each archetype.

In my ideal game where playing a gold has the potential of making your opponent rethink their whole strategy you need them to be restricted.

 

[Archpriest]

I remember the time when golds were immune and people still wanted the overall 10 number. Silvers are better in context for the decks.

One more thing, I hear this word "powercreep" too often lately. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it mean the introduction of new powerful cards that make the old ones weak and obsolete? If so, it isn't the case in Gwent.

 

[RickMelethron]

One more thing, I hear this word "powercreep" too often lately. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it mean the introduction of new powerful cards that make the old ones weak and obsolete? If so, it isn't the case in Gwent.

it can also refer to balance changes, like the massive buff given to heavy cavalry and vrihhed officers (which was later nerfed)
powercreep usually refers to the overall powerlevel in the gane becoming higher than it previously was

 

[partci]

... One more thing, I hear this word "powercreep" too often lately. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it mean the introduction of new powerful cards that make the old ones weak and obsolete? If so, it isn't the case in Gwent.

I was happily using my Rot Tossers in my Spy Deck... and then I met Monsters with Harpies and it was preposterous. Some of these new tags are.. weird.

 

[Archpriest]

it can also refer to balance changes, like the massive buff given to heavy cavalry and vrihhed officers (which was later nerfed)
powercreep usually refers to the overall powerlevel in the gane becoming higher than it previously was

Thanks for clarification. Another question, if I may: what's wrong with higher power overall? Esp if it's balanced.

I was happily using my Rot Tossers in my Spy Deck... and then I met Monsters with Harpies and it was preposterous. Some of these new tags are.. weird.

Balance changes are inevitable with introduction of new cards. I just don't see it being too bad in Gwent. But I totally understand the sentiment.

 

[bojerbela]

I think, some Golds need a little buff to be more viable, but this patch is much better than I expected before. But the card limit for Golds/Silvers must stay imo. I mostly play NR and it's always a hard decision with the Silvers. And it's good so.

 

[4RM3D]

We can go with a more elegant solution - you have 10 slots for these cards - distribute them however you want: 10 Silvers, 10 Golds, 5 Silvers and 5 Golds, whatever.

That could be a nice feature. Another thing I suggested way back, was increasing the gold and silver limit based on the size of your deck.

And, if not else, I dare you that even they are not that good now, if I use a 10 gold 10 silver 5 bronze deck against any of your current deck in game, I will always win. And that is a way more lethal issue, for the gap between players at different collection progess will become massive, and slowly turn to a truly P2W for new comers.

The premise is that making a full gold deck isn't necessarily stronger than a bronze/silver/gold deck with strong synergies. The idea is that gold and silver cards get diminished returns at some point.

if bronzes really were as strong as silver and gold cards, people would be playing less than 6 silvers and 4 golds. as far as i know, that doesn't happen.

That's because gold cards enable synergy for bronze cards. As said above, that would theoretically mean that you would always want a few bronze cards to create a snowball effect.

---

As stated in the OP, some tweaks are required first. The most obvious one is comparing Imperial Manticore (12 str) with Geralt (13 str). If there is no card limit, the Manticore wouldn't be used anymore, unless there is a specific interaction that doesn't work with gold cards (e.g. Decoy, although not applicable in this situation).

 

[arubino99]

One more thing, I hear this word "powercreep" too often lately. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it mean the introduction of new powerful cards that make the old ones weak and obsolete? If so, it isn't the case in Gwent.

Really? Is that why so many decks are using the powerful, NEW cards? Sages, Farseerer, Dwarfs, Longswords, boats, etc.?
Pre-patch, it was almost unheard of to get 80+ points in a round. Now, 100 is common. If that's not powercreep, I don't know what is.

 

[RickMelethron]

Thanks for clarification. Another question, if I may: what's wrong with higher power overall? Esp if it's balanced.

there are two ways to balance games: buff the weaker stuff or nerf to stronger stuff.

the problem with buff balance is that there will always be something weaker than the other, and over a few months (or years) of constantly buffing, the numbers start to get ridiculous. another issue is that anything which isn't buffed ends up being left behind.

for example: lets say that warcry decks are really strong, but consume, mulligan and reveal are a little on the weak side.
if you nerf warcry, you'll get to a place where the four decks will be on a standard power level. however, if the devs decide to buff the other three, instead of making balance changes for one deck, they'll have to make changes for three, and there will be a lot more room for error. inevitably, one (or more) of those decks will be pushed far up the intended power level; and the more powerful individual cards become, the more abusive interactions will happen in the game.

if you keep this going for a long time, you'll get to a gamestate where everything revolves around ridiculous combos, as is the case in yugioh... not to mention, of course, that everything "left behind" by devs will be far outclassed by the cards that are being buffed.

another example of powercreep buffing i can give is with diablo 3; it's a very different type of game, but suffers from many of the same issues: 90% of things in the game are useless because the new/improved stuff is so much stronger.

in an ideal scenario, buffing underpowered cards is effectively the same as nerfing overpowered ones; but when you factor human error into the equation, things begin to go awry, and the game ends up losing the identity it used to have.

nerf balance is a lot easier to manage, and a lot safer in the long run. (assuming, of course, that the nerfing isn't meant to completely destroy a given archetype)

edit: i'm not saying that no cards should ever be buffed, i'm saying that any buffs have to fall within a determined powercurve (so we don't end up with 14+ power bronze cards)

 

[Idiotruinsgame]

The only difference between gold and silver was that you couldn't affect golds without a few special cards. Now that doesn't matter I would like the option of picking silver in place of golds.

 

[Guest 4021160]

I agree, we definitely need restrictions! Otherwise it might get a lot harder for new players to succeed without investing money.

Yes to that. No new players=no gwent.