Deep analysis of Journey performed by Game Director himself

+
The weekly cap is 350 CP, but - as I know - Well Rested Crowns and Quest Crows are extra.
I mean, you can collect 350 CP + 98 CP Well Rested + 60 (Premium 120) CP for Quests per week.

Can you please link to a source, even if it is just another post on this forum?
 
Hey guys does anyone knows if I only complete the journey quests (including premium ones) and not play much Gwent, will I still be able to complete the journey at 100%?
 
Hey guys does anyone knows if I only complete the journey quests (including premium ones) and not play much Gwent, will I still be able to complete the journey at 100%?

Each quest is worth 20 points. 3 quests per category per week. You are paying for premium so you access all 6. 6 x 20 = 120. 12 weeks of quests at 120 crowns per week. 12 x 120 = 1440. The total required is 2376. 2376 - 1440 = 936 crowns. Remember, with the bonus 14 you essentially get 28 for the price of 14. By this math you need about 33 days of 28 crowns plus all quests to reach level 100.
 
Can you provide a source for your 350CP per day claim? I ask because my understanding was per week.

For those who don’t want to spend real money this is a downgrade. Your own math shows that not getting the partial rewards is clearly less rewarding.
Indeed per week, I have edited it.
 
Too bad that this analysis doesnt consider available cards or experience. Casual players are getting f-ed by this system big time. Also your matchmaking doesnt really help with it either. Even in seasonal I'll always queued against some rank 0 guys.
Refine this bs
 
I'd like to see a longer progression system. I maxed out in two months and have to wait a another month for more rewards. Journey progression should cap out at two hundred for more ambitious players. Just a thought.
 
I'd like to see a longer progression system. I maxed out in two months and have to wait a another month for more rewards. Journey progression should cap out at two hundred for more ambitious players. Just a thought.
The game doesn't stop giving you rewards though. The old system kicks in and you earn 2 rp at 6/12/24 rounds win like before.
 
I have a question for the developer:

Was it a conscious choice to show extreme favouritism and push the player base toward playing Nilfgaard faction decks through your selection of Journey Quests?

Was it a conscious choice to show a bias against and push the player base away from Monster factions decks through your selection of Journey Quests?

I ask this because I also sat down and did an analysis of the Journey Quests, and it really needs to be addressed if you choose to create future iterations of the Journey, how your Quest selection (whether unwittingly or not) has fed into and exacerbated an extremely stale meta where the easiest way to complete a lot of the journey quests is to play the most popular of Nilfgaard and Scoia'tael net decks.

You're killing us here guys. Please do take this seriously.
 
Was it a conscious choice to show extreme favouritism and push the player base toward playing Nilfgaard faction decks through your selection of Journey Quests?

Was it a conscious choice to show a bias against and push the player base away from Monster factions decks through your selection of Journey Quests?

Was it a conscious choice to put the implied answer in the question pushing the reply into a binary state? I understand that you are displeased, but no one is going to answer when being addressed like that.

Why do the Journey Quests seems to favor playing Nilfgaard, instead of Monsters which are underrepresented?

^ That's a much kinder and open way to ask the same question.
 
Actually, Skellige was the only faction that was completely ignored in the Journey quests. Going off of memory, I believe Monsters received representation in the form of a quest for playing units with Consume and another for playing Foglet. Regardless, Balgar-bard-slayer was at least correct when he stated that Nilfgaard had a lot more quests than the other factions, possibly as many as all of the other five combined. Whether this was done consciously is anyone's guess. Maybe Nilfgaard just has more individual mechanics and keywords than the other factions.
 
Was it a conscious choice to show extreme favouritism and push the player base toward playing Nilfgaard faction decks through your selection of Journey Quests?

It may be that they have taken into account the progression in the general collection of the players, they opted for those missions that would not force to create many cards since almost all the players have NG cards.
 
Actually, Skellige was the only faction that was completely ignored in the Journey quests. Going off of memory, I believe Monsters received representation in the form of a quest for playing units with Consume and another for playing Foglet. Regardless, Balgar-bard-slayer was at least correct when he stated that Nilfgaard had a lot more quests than the other factions, possibly as many as all of the other five combined. Whether this was done consciously is anyone's guess. Maybe Nilfgaard just has more individual mechanics and keywords than the other factions.
You are correct and I appreciate the support, but my analysis also looked at how many cards could be played by which faction to meet requirements. There could then be a weighting given based on how many of these cards required play to meet a specific quest. For example Week 7 spectre X 4, can be completed in 2 games quite easily, and doesn't necessarily require Monster's to complete. Week 9 Impenetrable Fog / Foglet X 3, is similar, plus potentially a lot of played won't actually get that far.

So, Though Monsters did have the specific quest lines. Skelliga decks could still be played potentially with more frequency than Monsters to complete quests. But I do agree that Skelliga were also hard done by.

To be honest, I only analysed weeks 1-7, but the writing was on the wall, and just glancing at the quest requirements for the final 3, I feel my predictions are pretty sound.

Hopefully they can address the above questions.
Post automatically merged:

It may be that they have taken into account the progression in the general collection of the players, they opted for those missions that would not force to create many cards since almost all the players have NG cards.

That is a nice guess, but unfortunately they included quests in Wk2 such as play 15 cards with aristocrat tag (see Nilfgaard), play 15 cards with bounty tag (see Syndicate). Most players would therefore be forced to create cards to meet these requirements.

So I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think it was more likely they wanted players to purchase the required cards.

And again to my original point "aristocrats" = poison ball

Note: the "aristocrat" quest was for standard journey, "bounty" quest was for premium, which again pushes more people toward Nilfgaard than it would Syndicate.


Edit: Just to support this point about purchasing cards further. I can give you an example of the Monster key word: "Consume" was chosen, but "Thrive" was not. From the starter set both have 3 cards, but from the base set where as Consume has 8 cards and Thrive 7, four of the consume cards are gold, whereas only one is gold for thrive in the base set. Actually, I think "consume" was chosen more to encourage people to purchase/use the Haunt scenario. But actually I don't actually have a problem with CDPR trying to make money.

But again THE MAIN POINT is the design of the quests has pushed players toward Nilfgaard, and secondly toward Scoia'tael decks

This is exacerbating the current stale meta, and needs addressing.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom