Suggestion About Deck Size and Maximum # of Silver/Gold Cards

[Archpriest]

No, we are not talking about 5 cards draw poker. We are talking about the concept of poker in general, s1eepy just explained you. If you can't see the similarities and resort to the basic "both games use cards" well...
Just to make an example: 7-8 card stud, omaha and even holdem' are among those mostly based on synergy and combos instead of just drawing cards to your hand, like you see it.
Another one would be variations where one suit in a certain situations/combos is superior to the other.
Sounds familiar?

About your betting "argument" - nobody sees your cards in poker (in some instances, part of them - yes) unless you reveal them or cards on the board for all parties to use.

 

[mkey82]

You haven't provided counters to any of the points I listed above, therefore I won't repeat anything that has already been stated.
You did center on "both games use cards" though, an "argument" which I haven't even used. An interesting way to handle a discussion.

Nowhere have I stated that people can see your cards in 5 card draw poker. That fact is what makes poker a game.

Statement from above reads "Your cards in Gwent are like your chips in Poker."

My rebuttal of that is: this statement is completely incorrect and easy to logically disprove since it simply can't stand any scrutiny. Chips are one the table, in plain sight. People know (or can guess approximately) how much betting power you have and can certainly position their own betting power relative to yours. Even if we would compare the role of chips (i.e. betting) in poker with cards in Gwen, which I wouldn't, this is a significant difference between the two. One is plainly evident, the other is hidden from sight.

To spin that argument around, if cards in Gwent are like chips in poker, then what are cards in poker like in Gwent? Completely illogical.

 

[maciej.lisicki]

Let decks with more than 25 cards include more golds/silvers

Hi,
I am trying to build a distinctive deck that focuses on drawing and summoning cards. Now it looks quite well with more than 35 cards. The only problem is that the chances of getting golds/silvers are really poor. I think it is a good idea to let bigger decks include more golds/silvers to provide equal odds of getting them. It will improve decks/tactics diversification and help bigger deck be competitive because now they are surely not.
For example:
>=30 cards +1 gold +1 silver
>=35 cards +1 gold +1 silver
and so on

 

[lomvicmarko]

:wat:

 

[TheShift]

Im gona sit this one out

 

[maciej.lisicki]

Then keep playing with few competitive decks.
Versatility in playable strategies is always good for such games and devs should encourage people to experiment. It even doesn't have to be effective (speaking about chances of getting golds) to add more cards to the deck but now it makes bigger deck completely unplayable.
The only problem of big decks is that they make games longer but still the number of cards you can draw is strongly limited (drawing all 25 cards rarely occurs now) so it shouldn't mess up with gameplay too much IMO.

 

[devivre]

If you think about how good the deck thinning abilities of factions like for example NG are, you'll realize that this is not the best idea.
So if you are careful with the cards you add to your deck, you should be able to handle 30 cards or more.

 

[XenokMe]

Would be to advantageous to NG decks. NG does not need more advantages.

 

[mishant]

Hi,
I am trying to build a distinctive deck that focuses on drawing and summoning cards. Now it looks quite well with more than 35 cards. The only problem is that the chances of getting golds/silvers are really poor. I think it is a good idea to let bigger decks include more golds/silvers to provide equal odds of getting them. It will improve decks/tactics diversification and help bigger deck be competitive because now they are surely not.
For example:
>=30 cards +1 gold +1 silver
>=35 cards +1 gold +1 silver
and so on

Worst suggestion according to me.......... as it causes some factions to become OP
& in general imbalances the gameplay

 

[maciej.lisicki]

Worst suggestion according to me.......... as it causes some factions to become OP
& in general imbalances the gameplay

The same you can say about adding any new card/mechanic...
It is all about keeping everything balanced and I think it is also possible with scaling gold/silver slots.

 

[Ihear_BlueColors]

Hi,
I am trying to build a distinctive deck that focuses on drawing and summoning cards. Now it looks quite well with more than 35 cards. The only problem is that the chances of getting golds/silvers are really poor. I think it is a good idea to let bigger decks include more golds/silvers to provide equal odds of getting them. It will improve decks/tactics diversification and help bigger deck be competitive because now they are surely not.
For example:
>=30 cards +1 gold +1 silver
>=35 cards +1 gold +1 silver
and so on

You say it, "looks quite well", how do you mean this. Are you already successful with the deck or do you imagine it will work well? How does it work right now?

I'm confused as to how this will help anyone except you. Smaller decks are more desirable because they are predictable. You can only use the mulligan system correctly if your deck is very predictable. I struggle with it, believe me. I'm not very good at this game. But your proposed changes would impact everything in the game.

Expanding on the suggestion as a whole; if you allow variation from the silver and gold limits with different sized decks you also need to explain what changes you would make to every gold and silver card currently in the game. Because you have massively changed the balance. You could potentially balance your change by introducing a need to win 3 out of 5 rounds. But this further unbalances the game by forcing people into larger decks. You might also then need to change the card limits in a deck. And so on.

 

[Laveley]

yeah, i'm with the masses on this one, it would be too much of a radical change and suddenly cards like vilgerfortz would become instantly OP and gamebreaking. Avallach would be auto-include, same with sarah and johnny and many others. Those are just the ones on the top of my head. NG would be certainly imba.

It probably would be less problematic to create a whole new game from the scratch than to re-balance everything around this change;

 

[4RM3D]

maciej.lisicki

thread merged

 

[Kvothe629]

Min. deck 27
3g, 6s (double gold), 18+bronze

Min. deck 36
4g, 8s, 24+bronze

Min. deck 45s
5g, 10s, 30+ bronze

cuz, why not?

 

[HTMekkatorque]

I think you might be trying to turn gwent into another game a little too much with this idea? Maybe the game can individualise itself by having really small card pools, small deck size and stay the same. But a ton of different factions? At 120 new cards a year you could basically add a new faction every so often. That way once the factions are in balance it should be easy to maintain and manage. That way the game is simple yes and you draw what you're expected to draw most the time, but in a sense that you can still work out your options pragmatically and statistically and each decision is impactful. At least that was what I was hoping would happen and the draw for me in the long term. You may just find the intricacies of playing one faction off against another is complicated enough to play around with when you begin to get 10+ factions, idk much about the law of the game, is there enough factions within the witchers to have 10,15,20 factions for instance?

 

[Exoclyps]

I must say that I really like the small decks. Sure it can make each game somewhat repeative if unlucky, but it also mean that I'll be able to actually do what I want with my deck. Most games I'm able to execute my strategy and I dig that.

Increase the card amount and you do add more RNG since I'll be less likely to get the cards to answer my opponents move. And they are less likely to pull their moves off. Increased frustration on bad draws, less strategy and more luck.

Gwent is supposed to be No RNG, so it would be a bad move.

Besides, just because we get new cards doesn't mean that we need bigger decks. They just have to make cards that support new types or currently weak types of decks. So we'd get a higher variety by the increased types of decks.

Latest patch proves that they can pull that off. Sure Dagon (the "nerfed to death" leader) seems to be fairly common but other than that I face various decks from all factions all the time. Current meta is great.

Besides as others pointed out NR would wreck meta if minimum cards where to be increased due to their insane thinning.

 

[Terobero]

1 silver per 3 bronze

What do you guys think of this idea? Starts with 1 silver at 0 bronze, so 6 silvers at 15 bronze, but rewards you for putting more cards in your deck. So if you want to put 7 silvers, you must make your deck less consistent.

 

[4RM3D]

Terobero

thread merged

 

[TheRedWatcher]

I come from a MTG and Yugioh background. So the standard for a deck has always been forty. You want a good deck with multiple strategies, go forty. That's how I build my decks. And my NG deck works. With the added draw power from the Magne Division and Last Wishes, the 40 doesn't really hinder the deck because I am always drawing something or mulliganing to control my deck draws in the first place. I don't understand the 25 card deck minimum because I think that it only allows really for one strategy and if you really need a card to defeat someone else's deck, then you missed out on a card because oops 25. Personally I think the standard should be 40 like any other standard card game. And to increase the Gold card by at least 1. 40 card decks, max 60 [like a commander deck] with an extra Gold being 1. Silver to me is fine, it be nice to see at least an increase in silver, especially since for NGs the only cards that really pull the NG deck together are the silvers and the 6 limit is really hard to build a strong deck that can counter against the strong meta power creep.

 

[MaroonJack]

I think extra silver cards would be fine, but additional golds could cause too much imbalance. So my proposal would be this: +1 silver card with 28 card deck, 32 card deck, 36 card deck and 40 card deck (up to a total of 10). This keeps the silver card percentage in a deck at a similar level (23,5% +/- 1,5%) no matter how many cards you run.

I would also increase the Leader's strength by 1 with 26 cards, 30 cards, 34 cards and 38 cards. This would be an additional benefit introduced as a compensation for a diluted amount of golds. It wouldn't be much, but I bet we would see a lot more diversity, as people wouldn't be afraid to go few cards up from 25, and wouldn't have to hit 30, 35 or 40 to get something out of it.