[HC]: CDPR please make all* cards to be played from hand

[G4merY]

Having silver or gold tutors is fine, but there shouldn't be any bronze ones.

You realise their are many decks based around bronze tutors. And certain engine and weather decks wouldn't work without them. For example, the Wild Hunt Frost deck, which is one of the old decks.

 

[4RM3D]

You realise their are many decks based around bronze tutors. And certain engine and weather decks wouldn't work without them. For example, the Wild Hunt Frost deck, which is one of the old decks.

But I reckon those cards are flawed to begin with. No one is going to cast a Frost straight from hand. The Hounds could just as well have spawned a weather card, like the mages, instead of tutoring one from the deck. Removing all bronze tutor cards is probably one step too far, but at the very least, bronze tutor cards should be reduced.

 

[time_drainer]

I don't want to respond point to point, I guess we will just agree to disagree. (And no offense taken or meant!)

Fair enough.

I only want to point out that I'm very skeptical that adding new cards will solve this problem. Some cards will always be better than others, and therefore you can always make your deck better choosing these cards and filling the rest with thinning.

That may be true to some extent, but if the balance is right and differences are only small, I still don't think everyone would just play the "optimal" variant for two reasons:

• people often trade effectiveness for variance, otherwise everyone would just play Brouver deck now as it has the highest win rate and nobody would bother even with Greatswords or Henselt
• people will tech against the optimal version, running the version with slightly less effective cards could actually become more advantegous

So not only you get a hugely powerful effect, but it is tempo positive. That is just mind-boggling, to be honest.If and when you want to keep them in, tutoring/thinning should cost points, not give them!

So it seems that we agree on one thing after all.
Although if the thinning/tutoring would need setup and/or synergy I would allow neutral or even positive plays. Definitely not for the easy thinning though.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

You're exaggerating a lot here. And please don't make Gwent a random clownfiesta like other CCGs and Magic. Gwent works because of its tutors. They are generally balanced. Gwent will suffer without tutors, or if they are just reduced by say even 30%. Everyone has access to tutors, that's why they're balanced.

You realise their are many decks based around bronze tutors. And certain engine and weather decks wouldn't work without them. For example, the Wild Hunt Frost deck, which is one of the old decks.

I honestly find these comments quite interesting.

"Gwent works because of its tutors." Yet the most successful version of Gwent; the one that was meant as a SP side-game, and that people liked it so much that they clamored for a MP version so they could play against their friends, it had literally zero tutors in the entire game.

"Weather decks, especially the Wild Hunt Frost deck, wouldn't work without them." But in CB there were basically no tutors, and yet weather decks (and particularly Eredin) were very strong. (Okay, I concede that weather worked quite differently back then, as did almost everything else.)

My point is that sometimes we get used to a feature, and can only see the game like that. But it is important to remember that original Gwent we all loved had no tutors! And it worked! There is no need for tutors in the game. "Oh, we need special-casters because specials are too weak!" They are too weak exactly so special-casters (which are in the end of the day, tutors) can cast them!

"No one would ever cast frost directly from hand." Because that is the way they balanced the card! Frost could easily be: "Damage an unit by 4 and set frost to its row." (Or something like that.) It would be exactly the same amount of points as frost hound, but no need for tutors. And it would be archetype-neutral, so you wouldn't need to run frost hounds in an ogroid deck, which is painfully stupid. And you had another card that you could do something interesting with, instead of being pure 5 points over thinning. (Knowing CDPR, I can guess what they would do: "Whenever you set frost to an opponent's row, summon a frost hound from your deck" hahaha.)

 

[BornBoring]

Well, personally I think some tutors are fine and I don't have a problem with gwent decks being very consistent compared to other CCGs.

What I don't like are tutor cards without any special requirements (esspecially bronze ones) like dimun pirate captain. I think slyzard for example is ok. A deck thinning tool, which I really miss were old drummond shieldmaidens. It had an extra requirement to work and if it worked it had synergy with axemen.

Generally one of the most annoying things about the development of gwent is that CDPR replaced a lot of real synergies with dull tutor cards (best example: pirate captain). I also don't like that basically all bronze specials are balanced around being tutored.

"No one would ever cast frost directly from hand." Because that is the way they balanced the card! Frost could easily be: "Damage an unit by 4 and set frost to its row." (Or something like that.) It would be exactly the same amount of points as frost hound, but no need for tutors. And it would be archetype-neutral, so you wouldn't need to run frost hounds in an ogroid deck, which is painfully stupid. And you had another card that you could do something interesting with, instead of being pure 5 points over thinning. (Knowing CDPR, I can guess what they would do: "Whenever you set frost to an opponent's row, summon a frost hound from your deck" hahaha.)

Yes, reminds of my complaints at the beginning of open beta when weather was broken and extremely oppressing and WH decks actually didn't even have nearly any frost synergy except being able to spam frost. Even more annoying that some people denied, that tutor cards aren't real synergy cards. There's still a huge lack of interesting weather synergy in the game imo.

 

[G4merY]

But it is important to remember that original Gwent we all loved had no tutors!

The original Gwent was also comparatively simple, too. I'm not against the idea of a tutor-less Gwent. But from the current version of the game, it'll have to be a great overhaul, for the gameplay to be relatively complex. Simply removing the tutors will make the game lacking. Specially cards like Roach can never be removed, so yes deck-thinning is an important game aspect. Rather than tutors, the problem is chain-play. So, there may be mechanisms like a spell can only be tutored by a unit, and a unit can only be tutored by a spell, to avoid row-filling. Similarly, a tutor cannot tutor another tutor, or a copy of itself, which is a much-exploited and frustrating gameplay feature. Even doing this though, will change the game considerably, and make a lot of current decks unplayable. Like I said, it'll have to be a major overhaul, maybe even a step back.

Also, you must admit that in the Witcher 3 we played against an AI. So, the gameplay had to be kept simple to keep the game functional, otherwise the AI opponent might do some things which may seem stupid, which it still did at times. On the other hand, the human mind is sharp and exploitative. So, if the cards aren't dynamic and complex enough with many synergies, the players will get bored soon and move on. Don't you remember how stupid the AI is for the single-player Challenges of Gwent? The single-player Events were much difficult in-comparison, but they used to bend the rules of the card-game, and had you play with a specific deck.

We can argue till the end of time, but as an online CCG game, Gwent needs to have a certain level of complexity. The Witcher 3 version is more suited for a physical card-game for a casual play among a small group of friends. I hope this will give you some new perspective.

 

[South8]

Rather than tutors, the problem is chain-play. So, there may be mechanisms like a spell can only be tutored by a unit, and a unit can only be tutored by a spell, to avoid row-filling.

This is something I can get behind. Removing tutoring from the game would be too game changing and the original in-game gwent was waay too simple for a multiplayer game, so that argument against tutors is a bit weak. Also, I too am against chaining and being able to put multiple cards on the board in a single turn (except golds like Draug), so the quoted suggestion really seems appropriate. But some form of tutoring needs to remain, after all, tutoring does give you disadvantage of filling your card limit and you can't include many other real-functioned cards. Roach is a good example - it takes a quite valuable silver slot; or even better - the silver witchers take 3 slots, for being quite a weak play for 3 silvers. Regarding bronze tutors, they are incredibly unbalanced as we have those that play random stuff, to those that give you 2 options, require a unit on board and then there's pirate captain that gives you everything... They are just unfair. Either make all of them require a unit or play random/one of 2 random. Make them consistent and balanced and easily bricked. Then tutoring would see less play.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

We can argue till the end of time, but as an online CCG game, Gwent needs to have a certain level of complexity

Removing tutoring from the game would be too game changing and the original in-game gwent was waay too simple for a multiplayer game

I didn't want to reply to the first post, because I really don't want to be that guy that contests every single post in their threads that disagrees with them. But I got surprised that the same argument appeared again.

I simply don't understand this. In what way do you two think that tutors add complexity to the game? I would argue instead that tutors remove complexity. The GS case that I posted a while ago is a good example: you only need to know how to use 2 cards, GS and LS. (And in this case, two not very complex cards in the first place.) The rest is just tutors and resurrection. In my opinion, that deck is much much less complex to play than a deck that has 15 unique bronzes, each one with real effects that you have to consider when to use and how.

In fact, that was one of my main original arguments against tutors: they make the game more simple, by removing variety. In the limit (and with a deck like Greatswords, we are honestlyreally close to that point), you can almost memorize (or netdeck, being a bit cynical) the optimal play pattern and do basically the same moves every single game. (Start with Crach to GS, then Pirate Captain into Longship, then Spearmaiden into another GS, then another LS; if they remove your LS, you play Pirate Captain into Corsair, resurrecting the ship, etc.)

 

[G4merY]

I simply don't understand this. In what way do you two think that tutors add complexity to the game?

:listen:

Each deck of Gwent requires 25 cards. Out of these 25, 15 are randomly selected. Everyone can create a deck with up to 50 (or something) cards for the most fun and surprise. But everyone sticks to a deck of at most 28, mostly 25. Probably due to competition. Anyways...
There're some 5 or 6 types of Gwent cards, just like in any other card game. These are basic Power cards (with no effects or abilities), damage cards, boost cards, damage engine (or weather cards), and boost engine. All cards are some variation or mix of these cards with their own conditions and stats. Of course, you knew all of this. Now, tutors, are another type of card, and help complicate the game in two ways. First of, they complicate deck-building. Because now, you not only have to decide which cards to add to your deck, but also how many. Since these tutors don't have any effect or even Power of their own, and are simply used to play another card (which you already know), by adding tutors you can reduce the number of playable cards in your deck, making them more consistent. This is vital to gameplay. Imagine getting stuck in a bad situation in a round for which you've the perfect solution in the form of a card. But unfortunately, you don't have that card in your hand. Then, what good is such a card? No good. Now, since a tutor is more or less a copy of a card, you can increase the probability of getting a card in your hand by adding different, multiple tutors for it. In fact, the perfect deck would be one in which you can play any of the 25 cards (both from hand and deck), at any time throughout the game.
Now, imagine a round of Gwent with 0 tutors. Both of you have some 10 cards in your hand from a deck of 25. Each of you will play 10 cards each, and the person with better luck, who drew the superior cards (Gold and Silver), will win the game. At least that is how the game was for me in The Witcher 3, and it's how it is in Arena. But the idea is that deck-building is an important part of Gwent. And without tutors, the person with a better collection of high Power card will win.
Tutors are the only reason deck-thinning is a part of the game, which is critical strategy in winning the game. Still, they've some limitations. They can be played blank. They can become bricks. And the deck which adds more cards to the hand (game) completely thrashes decks with excessive deck-thinning.

So, a quick review. 1. They complicate deck-building. (Remember, complexity is a good thing here.) 2. Deck-thinning. (Choose the number of playable cards in your deck.) 3. Reduce the impact of probability on game-result. 4. Make your deck more accessible. 5. Complicate the game. Make it surprising. And I'm sure there are more.

Like I said, the problem is chain-play, and not tutoring itself. And it is highly imbalanced. Every faction (or card) should have its own style of tutoring, and some of them should be better at it than others. For example, I like how a certain Monster tutor plays a card by consuming a copy of it from the graveyard. Similarly, instead of the Foglet casting Fog, the Fog summons the Foglet (which is true to the game). Instead of removing tutors completely (it can be done, but would require the Homecoming overhaul), CDPR should recreate tutors as a card class, and make more cards around them. For example, the NG card which sends all copies of a card to the graveyard from the deck could've been a Neutral card. Or at least, such cards should be present for every faction, much like the Locks. Similarly, a Silver card which could keep all other Bronze and Silver cards from summoning or creating cards as long as it is on the board can be created for tutor-hating players like yourself. And a similar Gold card, which would block any summoning/creating for the whole round, or even game upon being played, for the obvious condition that you don't have any tutors in your own deck.
In a card game, nothing is a problem. Every problem is an opportunity instead. The time and effort that has gone in creating a card is way too much (specially for Gwent, where we've 3D animated versions) to simply remove it from the game. Any card can be balanced by nerfing it, or creating multiple counter-cards, to control the overall direction of gameplay. I think CDPR has the data, but not the time to do it. A card game like Gwent can never be perfectly balanced, because it is too diverse and complicated already. It can only be complicated further and fine-tuned every month. Something which the team has probably become tired of, and is why considering the Homecoming overhaul/reboot, or whatever you wanna call it. Still not sure what it is. At least CDPR has acknowledged (they have, right?) that the game is not in a state to be released yet, which is something considering that it's already in its open-beta stage (which means that no new features will be added). I don't think that the game is broken or unplayable, but it's not perfect yet. And I don't expect any less from CDPR. And with the current level of competition, it's a choice between enjoying and winning. While a game should offer those two simultaneously. The stakes are too high, haha...

I hope you now have a clear idea of why tutors are important to the game, even if they weren't a part of The Witcher 3 Gwent (which was for a different set of reasons). Meh...why am I not getting paid for this?

 

[Alch1mist]

I think that there is definitely issues with tutors.

To begin with we have quite a lot of bronze units that tutor other units, some of them are fine because they need a small amount of set-up, Reaver Scout or Wild Hunt Navigator are examples amongst many, those cards can be countered by simply killing units on the board before the tutors are deployed, and they’re needed to make strategies more reliable, and less draw dependant, all in all they’re good for the game. Moreover those tutors should have additional effect, maybe depending on the row they’re placed on, in order to make them more unique, as they’re pretty much identical right now.
However you also have Dimun Pirate Captain that is on the opposite spectrum, because it can directly pull from your deck without any kind of set-up, therefore cannot be countered like other units that tutor, which makes it way too strong (particularly in combination with resurrection) and reliable, this is a design philosophy that needs to be gone with Homecoming, otherwise we’ll have the same issues as we currently have.

Nonetheless if removal is an answer against “balanced” tutors, it’s an answer that only woks for control type decks, and other decks are still vulnerable to tutors. I think the tools to answers tutors should be expanded, if removal is the hard-counter, then we need more light-counters, cards that are not going to directly stop tutors, but punish them later on. Vandergrift is a good example of punishing tutors, because tutors are generally one strength they’re going to trigger Vandergrift’s Ragh Nar Roog, while also increasing his board damage; old Stammelford's Tremor used to also punish one strength units, but was nerfed because of Ithlinne Aegli, which was a huge mistake as such cards should be expanded upon, rather than pushed back. Other cards like old Morenn was also good because it used to kill the units before their ability, such cards should also come back rather than being removed, and additionally having a Gold/Silver that can deny summoning while on the board would be a nice addition.

Then we also have bronze units that tutor special cards coming with their own issues, notably the fact that more and more factions have them, which makes each faction less special. Those tutors should be more dedicated for each faction, instead of what we have right now with for instance Nilfgaard that has a tutor for Alchemy and another for Items, it should look like something:

• Nilfgaard: Alchemy
• Northern Realms: Spells and Items
• Monsters: Organics
• Scoia’tael: Spells and Tactics
• Skellige: No dedicated tutor for special cards.

I would change nothing regarding tutors for Hazards/Boons because those tutors are more than necessary, but yet again having a unique effect would be nice, such as Foglet (which isn't exactly a tutor) being invulnerable to Fog damage.

Outside of that special cards are not really an issue, outside maybe of Reconnaissance which is a very strong for a bronze, as you can easily thin down to zero cards in some decks. And there is also the issue of tutors for card advantage spies, but if Homecoming fix card advantage spies and the coin flip, then they’ll be less of an issue.

Mill is also an answer against extreme thinning decks, and tutors in general, but Mill as an archetype isn't exactly fun and interactive to play against, because they aren't any real counter to it, outside of a calculated pass to stop a Decoy on Albrich, and it's also a very binary match-up if you play a hyper-thin deck, as you'll loose no matter what, but if the developers manage to make Mill more interactive with Homecoming, then it'll be a good answer.

Otherwise you could also increase slightly the minimal number of cards in the deck, from 25 to 30, with 1 more Gold slot, 1 more Silver slot, and 3 more Bronze slots, which would open a lot the deck building, and make thinning a bit harder, that being said increasing the number of Gold/Silver might unbalance the game too much.

 

[time_drainer]

Moreover those tutors should have additional effect, maybe depending on the row they’re placed on, in order to make them more unique, as they’re pretty much identical right now.

I think they're unique enough at the moment. Navigators are Wild Hunt things, Spearmaiden have damage synergy, Slyzard Consume & Deathwish synergy, etc. Reavers are the only ones without "identity", but they are all-flexible option like Elven Mercenary for Specials.
I think adding another effect would make them too powerful, unless it's some very small thing, but that I see as an unnecessary complication with no relevance in 95% of the matches (e.g. Foglet's Fog immunity).

we need more light-counters, cards that are not going to directly stop tutors, but punish them later on.

I very much like the idea.
Regarding Tremors: I think even CDPR admitted back then that it was actually Ithlinne who should have gotten the nerf, they just didn't have the time to make it happen. So I hope they will find a way to change her so she still remains powerful but not completely broken if combined with the right Spell and then revert Tremors back.

Then we also have bronze units that tutor special cards coming with their own issues, notably the fact that more and more factions have them, which makes each faction less special.

I can't support limiting deck design space in the name of faction identity. I would be okay with emphasizing the "dominant" special types with adding more synergies though.
Also they may look similar, e.g. they all just tutor Items, but if you think about it you tend to tutor for very different Items when playing Skellige, Nilfgaard and Northern Realms.
I would also tweak on your categorization as well, like I find Tactics more belonging to Northern Realms and Nilfgaard. To think about it we shouldn't even link them with factions but rather with archetypes. (e.g. Soldier NR is Tactics, but cursed NR is Spell & Items).

 

[time_drainer]

Suggestion for a nerf for choose-from-2 tutors thinners: make them only work if you have at least 6* targets in your starting deck. Alternatively at least 3* different target. (*Numbers are adjustable).
It wouldn't only limit them to more thematic decks, but also make them less consistent running more them more risky or conditional (i.e. you need to have a board state that when all/most of your options provide good value).
I can't think of anything for Recon, though so I guess it should be gone in its current form. Maybe we can replace it with faction specific alternatives that are limited to unit types (e.g Soldier for NG, Mage for NR or whatever).

 

[_id]

While we are at this deck, I'd like to point out a really broken piece of it: Dimun pirate captain. It is by far the strongest of all bronze tutors as it gives you ALL of your Dimun cards to choose from.

The units one can choose from are very limited, not to mention that Skellige cards that were powerful already had a lot of restrictions placed on them shortly before or after, the introduction of Dimun Pirate Captains. Like the rez cards used to be capable of bringing any card out of the graveyard, but now those cards are fairly limited in what they can resurrect.

In general though, I love tutor cards and don't have much of an issue with them. But if I understand the OP, I agree that the tutoring system could be more interesting and I like the idea of tutored cards being more about added abilities than simply increasing power.

Maybe CDPR could add a separate stat for each player that changes in value depending on the number of tutored cards each respective player has played. In addition to that, have cards in the game that are affected by that stat player's number. Granted, some of you might argue that bricking a tutor is already a real consequence of playing too many tutors, I still think that at times they're not configured quite right.