Deck sizes

[New_Faded]

Deck sizes

I was talking to a friend the other day and the subject of how many cards you should have in a deck came up. He was saying 25 to maximize effectiveness with drawing, I said about 30ish to allow for more flexibility depending on the deck you're playing against. It seems like in certain cases you might want more, but my limited playtime so far hasn't afforded me that many cards to really build around. I played a few games with NR and it seemed like more might be a better strategy with them, so long as you can stagger buffs so you don't get eviscerated by scorch every time.

My point being what's the general consensus on size? More deck dependent, situational, playstyle, or personal preference? I'm sure there's no 'right' answer, just wanted to know what other people think.

 

[4RM3D]

Always use a deck size of 25. Putting in more cards only lessens the chance of getting the (silver, gold) card you need. There *might* be one exception with a very specific deck. Other than that... always 25. And if you really consistently run out of cards, use Ciri: Dash.

 

[rajule]

I wasn't for it before, but now the more I play the more I'm leaning in favor of them upping the minimum deck size above 25. I think 30 would help in cutting down the ridiculous effectiveness of some decks and allow more flexibility. With 25 cards we have the problem of some decks being so strong and so reliable with such a small pool that they dominate the player base.

how often do we see comments about seeing this particular deck over and over and over that it makes the game less fun and exciting.

I know you can't really ever eliminate metas but larget deck sizes reduce consistency and therefore monotony.

 

[New_Faded]

how would you cut it down then? Take out higher strength with no abilities, lower strength with abilities, or specials? I don't have that many newer cards outside of starters yet.

As for specials, what should you always have atleast one of?

 

[RickMelethron]

I wasn't for it before, but now the more I play the more I'm leaning in favor of them upping the minimum deck size above 25. I think 30 would help in cutting down the ridiculous effectiveness of some decks and allow more flexibility. With 25 cards we have the problem of some decks being so strong and so reliable with such a small pool that they dominate the player base.

the problem is that it would make the game even more RNG based than now... let's say you're playing against a dwarf deck, and the proper card in your deck to counter them is D-bomb; if you increase the size of your deck, it will reduce your chances of drawing that D-bomb, and actually make it less likely that you'll be able to counter dwarf decks.

currently, the game is about having a consistent deck; that's why consistent decks win more often... if you simply increase the minimum deck size, the game will continue to be a matter of consistency, but draw RNG will play a much higher role in wins/loses.

how often do we see comments about seeing this particular deck over and over and over that it makes the game less fun and exciting.

the issue is not the deck being able to draw this or that specific card... the issue is poor balancing. some decks are overall significantly strong, so even if they don't draw one or two specific cards, they're still able to win.
meanwhile, other decks have an overall lower power than their counterparts, or might rely on a couple of key cards for their strong plays... that's what makes those decks weaker

I know you can't really ever eliminate metas but larget deck sizes reduce consistency and therefore monotony.

and as mentioned above, makes people frustrated because the opponent just so happened to draw 2-3 gold cards while they drew none.

 

[ArianeGrosmont]

think about it this way:
you have a max of 4 gold cards in your deck, max 6 silver cards and a minimum of 25 cards in total, meaning at least 15 bronze.
lets say you have a deck of 25 (4G, 6S, 15B) while i have a deck of 35 (4G, 6S, 25B)
now, let's go into a game, shall we?
we each draw 10 cards, and can mulligan 3.
do you see how much better your chances would be of getting that perfect gold card that would make the game for you?
and if it's true regarding gold, it's pretty much true regarding any card you absolutely need to own the game. the smaller your deck, the bigger your chances of drawing the right card.
it's the kind of math even a simpleton like me can do

 

[Atavax]

yeah, i mean, you have 4 golds and 6 silvers that are legit better than your bronzes. You want to get the most of those golds and silvers out, so you minimize the bronzes in your deck. It kind of sucks, because i wish more cards was a viable choice, but as long as golds and silvers are just flat out stronger than bronze, i don't see it happening.

 

[Tungdilboindil]

it could be done this way: 25 card minimum, if you choose 30, you have an extra silver card, 35, an extra gold card, 40, 2 more silvers (so 9 instead of 6).

 

[Atavax]

it could be done this way: 25 card minimum, if you choose 30, you have an extra silver card, 35, an extra gold card, 40, 2 more silvers (so 9 instead of 6).

or you could have separate decks and like draw 2 golds, 2 silver, 6 bronze at the start. Maybe a bronze and a silver for round 2 and then a bronze for round 3. Makes the game a little less luck based as well.

 

[4RM3D]

it could be done this way: 25 card minimum, if you choose 30, you have an extra silver card, 35, an extra gold card, 40, 2 more silvers (so 9 instead of 6).

Ninja'd

 

[RickMelethron]

it could be done this way: 25 card minimum, if you choose 30, you have an extra silver card, 35, an extra gold card, 40, 2 more silvers (so 9 instead of 6).

people would still play 25 card decks; since the consistency would be better

 

[New_Faded]

Seems like the benefits of only having 25 in a deck make a lot of faction specific cards pointless to have then.

 

[Archpriest]

people would still play 25 card decks; since the consistency would be better

This. The whole point is to maximize the efficiency and minimize RNG.
I also do not think that additional gold slot would be an incentive. I bet many would play 3 gold cards in a 20 deck.

I do think however that maybe a new mode where you have to play 30-35 card deck would be a good addition. Great for situational tactic changes and awareness.

 

[Tungdilboindil]

Ninja'd

whops, totally forgot that... I should be crowned king of ''it's already been posted''... :smile:

 

[zantclick]

Seems like the benefits of only having 25 in a deck make a lot of faction specific cards pointless to have then.

Most faction-based cards fit into a single archetype. Trying to fill a single deck with all of them won't net you very good results because you'll wind up getting cards from multiple different deck types in one hand with no synergy There have been some attempts at this that I've seen, like a 30 card Harald deck with the old version of Clan Tuirseach Axeman that involved half discard and half board damage and they never drew into a Savage Bear. The only deck I can think of that would work in is maybe a lite-Consume Monsters with Foglets and 3 Nekker Warriors in order to make a bunch of little guys that never end... but that will usually lose to high-ceiling decks.

 

[robwarrior]

I'm not in the beta but in the witcher 3 I use the least amount of cards so u have a better chance of drawing ur good ones

 

[Atavax]

i guess the only way to get people to chose larger decks would be in the larger decks gave you a higher percentage of golds and silvers. Because as stated, the greater consistency smaller decks provide would make them more desirable even if the percentage of silver and golds in the deck were equal. So in 25, its 1 gold/silver for every 2.5 cards, so maybe if at 30, you could get 3 more gold/silver so 8 silvers and 5 gold. at 35 10 silvers and 7 gold.

 

[Archpriest]

i guess the only way to get people to chose larger decks would be in the larger decks gave you a higher percentage of golds and silvers. Because as stated, the greater consistency smaller decks provide would make them more desirable even if the percentage of silver and golds in the deck were equal. So in 25, its 1 gold/silver for every 2.5 cards, so maybe if at 30, you could get 3 more gold/silver so 8 silvers and 5 gold. at 35 10 silvers and 7 gold.

Seven gold and 10 silver... Lmao
Too begin with...You do realise this automatically puts new and f2p players at complete disadvantage, right?

 

[Atavax]

Seven gold and 10 silver... Lmao
Too begin with...You do realise this automatically puts new and f2p players at complete disadvantage, right?

you realize that new and f2p players are at a complete disadvantage regardless? Right?

Also, i think most people would still prefer 25 cards with 4 gold and 6 silver honestly, so i don't think it would put new or free players at anymore of a disadvantage. It would just make it possible to justify a larger deck. I mean, lets say your deck relies on 1 card and you have 1 card that will draw it for you, plus the card itself, plus 2 extra draw, and 2 deck thinning. If you have a deck of 25, you would only have a 12% chance of not getting either of those two cards. If you have a deck of 35, you have a 30% chance of not getting either card, even if you add a third card that you just need the 1 to win, there would be a 16% chance of not drawing any of the 3; still significantly worse than the 12% at 25.

 

[Archpriest]

you realize that new and f2p players are at a complete disadvantage regardless? Right?
.

No, they are not. Not to the extend you want it to be. I'm quite surprised to see this claim, to be honest.
Plus, you could literally have two strong decks in one.
If you want players to use larger decks without the aformentioned issues, the silver and gold ratio has to be much lower.