[Idea] Provosion increasing cards

[Fimbulthrym]

A fast and maybe not very well balanced idea come up for me:
Cards which will increase the provions in deck builder.

How it works:
You have 5 provisions, take this cards into your deck and you have 6 provions now.

So you can buy a more powerfull card, but have to put a weak (1 strength) unit without further abilities, tags "civilian". Lets call thee cards "peasants". These allows you to take bigger combos into play, but higher the chances of bricking your hand.

Peasants can be putted unlimited into your deck. As long as the tutors ingame arent that much a thing, which i assume is intented, you can't go around thes deck-bricking effects.

These allows some further archetypes for military units who interact with peasants, your own and your opponent. But we have to be carefull, not to inprove the synergies to far, otherwise this would be clearly broken.

 

[betraymechino]

Would be absurdly broken with Derran.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Would be absurdly broken with Derran.

Why? I dont see a problem especially with this card. Sure you can thin your deck with this and get +3 provision, but you have to built your deck to this degree and i think this will in the end cost more than 3 provisions. Remember sou dont have Derran at hand for 100%

 

[4RM3D]

I made a thread about suggestions for a Flexible Provision Limit, where I also thought about "negative" provision cards that gives your opponent points instead, which is an even more extreme version of what you are suggestion. Either way, it's not a good idea because it will always increase the variance of the draw, which is something that's already a problem with HC. Furthermore, if you cannot discard the junk cards (like with SK), it will becoming a junk yard (dumping ground) in the 2nd round when you need to unload cards (or in the first round, when you can no longer win it). In the end, nothing good will come of it.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

I made a thread about suggestions for a Flexible Provision Limit, where I also thought about "negative" provision cards that gives your opponent points instead, which is an even more extreme version of what you are suggestion. Either way, it's not a good idea because it will always increase the variance of the draw, which is something that's already a problem with HC. Furthermore, if you cannot discard the junk cards (like with SK), it will becoming a junk yard (dumping ground) in the 2nd round when you need to unload cards (or in the first round, when you can no longer win it). In the end, nothing good will come of it.

That is the hole point about it. CDRed want to have increased variance, this idea just deliver the tool for it. And if you introduce some other cards which interact with peasants, this could reduce the variance at will.

 

[4RM3D]

CDRed want to have increased variance, this idea just deliver the tool for it.

So, if CDPR wanted to add even more RNG, you would also provide tools for that? I am not used to users giving suggestions for things that CDPR wants to achieve, rather than what the individual user wants to have.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Well i thought we discussed the hole last months how bad/good was HC. You were pro I was contra. And now, the moment i give in with an suggestion, which would go for CDReds "fantastic" road and improved game, you are against this?

This idea can pretty much higher or even lower the variance. Lower, if you are able to put tutor cards in the deck by the extra provisions and/or create some synergy-cards for it.

 

[4RM3D]

Well i thought we discussed the hole last months how bad/good was HC. You were pro I was contra. And now, the moment i give in with an suggestion, which would go for CDReds "fantastic" road and improved game, you are against this?

For the sake of argument, even when I am for Homecoming, that doesn't mean I like every aspect thereof. The higher variance was a natural result of some of the decisions made by the devs, like the 2 bronze limit and the new mulligan system. While these changes do increase the variance, I don't think this was a goal on its own and these changes do a lot more also. Your suggestion, on the other hand, is solely focussed on creating more variance and nothing else by "artificially" pumping the numbers. So, even if the devs wanted to increase the variance even further, this is not the way to do it. That's why I have also linked my suggestions which do increase the variance, but, at the same time, changes the dynamics of the deck.