3 Life per player mode.

[DziejopisWawel]

3 Life per player mode.

As its standalone game, it don't have to be short, and possibility to play more than 3 rounds could provide more tactics etc. Of course in that case you would start with more cards.
Did you guys have tested something like this?

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

I would love to see something like that in the beta

 

[BeanusMaximus]

It's an interesting idea but I don't think it would work with how the game is designed.
Even with a higher amount of starting cards, these could be exhausted in the first 2 rounds leading to a pretty dull ending. They could add these in as a Custom Match settings along with the amount of Starting Cards but official wise I don't think it'd be as good as the current round limit

 

[Guest 3893205]

Do you mean the singleplayer mode? There are more friendly solutions invented

 

[DziejopisWawel]

Do you mean the singleplayer mode? There are more friendly solutions invented

If you understood it as we will have 3 lifes in our singerplayer campaign like in oldscool games, than sorry, i should be more clear. I mean that to win the game we will have to win 3 rounds rather than 2 (like destroy 3 gems in W3 instead of 2)

 

[TigrisCallidus]

As its standalone game, it don't have to be short, and possibility to play more than 3 rounds could provide more tactics etc. Of course in that case you would start with more cards.
Did you guys have tested something like this?

Well the shorter the games the better it is suited for mobile. And gwent would be great for mobile!
So in that way having max 3 rounds is preferable.
Also if you need to win 3 times rather then 2 it would need up to 5 rounds.

For that either the number of cards have to be increased, or you just play 0-1 cards in the rounds you want to lose, which is kinda boring.
When you need more hand cards, the total number of cards also needs to be increased, and the possibility of different decks will decrease.

So all in all I do not realy see why 5 rounds should be better. With 3 rounds you can allready quite well try to deceive your opponent (you can lose 1 round) more is not that much needed, and you will not be able to trick the enemy 2 times into playing more cards then needed. (Especially as you have a limited number of spies and the swap cards).

 

[msklpharaun]

​I agree with the author, and I think that the emergence of new game modes in the future is almost inevitable.

 

[Guest 3893205]

If you understood it as we will have 3 lifes in our singerplayer campaign like in oldscool games, than sorry, i should be more clear. I mean that to win the game we will have to win 3 rounds rather than 2 (like destroy 3 gems in W3 instead of 2)

The battles would be interesting in single player, let me put it this way

 

[seph1c0]

The only beef I have with extending the length of the game to say best of 5 is that it would start to skew the underlying mechanics of the game.

If the game was best of 5 for example, you would have to draw more cards initially, as one of the core mechanics of the game is the limited amounts of cards drawn

If you had to draw more cards you would start enforcing larger deck sizes, otherwise you run the risk of guaranteeing some cards are drawn with certainty every game - which has obvious consequences.

If the deck sizes are larger then you have to start including cards in the game that give you card advantage, like draw 2 or search your deck etc, otherwise a lot of card synergy strategies would fall apart.



It's not a bad idea, but has a big trickle effect. I'm sure CDPR will look at all the options though. My 2 cents.