At the time of this quote was the Weekly Limit 100 CP:Can you please link to a source, even if it is just another post on this forum?
Cap is only for Winning Rounds and equals 100 -
link:this doesn't take into account well rested or quests, so to get there you need to win 100 rounds.
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.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%?
Indeed per week, I have edited it.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.
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'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.
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.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.