Imbalance in rarity

[Baba.Yaga]

Imbalance in rarity

Currently there are 45 common, 40 rare, 51 epic and 61 legendaries in the game. Now i realize these numbers will probably change. But i thought it was important to point them out. Because these are some really bad numbers here. There are more legendaries than any other rarity. Shouldn't legendaries be the least? There are even bronze legendaries in the game, like the savage bear. Legendary bronze really makes no sense to me because you need 3 of them. Getting 3 of them in packs will be very difficult which means you have to craft them. Which most likely won't be cheap. On the other hand there is not even 1 common or rare gold card.

I hope there will be some changes to the rarity systeem because at the moment these numbers just aren't fair.

I also feel that it might be confusing for new players to have the gold,silver,bronze system and the rarity systeem. Woudn't it be easier if the rarity corresponded with the colour of the card?

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

Bronze (common-rare) ,Silver(common,rare,epic),gold(rare,epic,legendary)

I think this is how it should be with legendary being reserved to cards like Geralt:Igni , maybe it's the only one that deserves legendary right now

 

[Keymaker7]

Bronze (common-rare) ,Silver(common,rare,epic),gold(rare,epic,legendary )

Yep, it is reasonable.

 

[Yourfacetm]

I think the numbers are skewed because this isn't all the cards in the game. I do agree with the problem of earning three bronze legendary cards and how that will hurt players wanting to play certain decks. On the other hand, from CDPR perspective, if every one-of card was high rarity then it may be too easy to obtain the entire collection. This would mean that they wouldn't get as much money from packs. I don't think that bronze should go as high as legendary though, maybe one rarity less?

Also, bronze - silver - gold doesn't translate very well to common - rare - epic - legendary. Unless they split some silver and some gold cards and moved their rarity up to legendary to even out that scale, which still wouldn't solve the confusion.

There should be a clear visible sign of rarity this would solve the confusion. This would also be easy for new players to see rarity. Being able to see a card played against you and think "oh, I want that" and being able to see the rarity is very important.

I have two ideas to fix this confusion. First would be to place a color scheme to rarity. Notice the bronze/silver/gold line on the left of the card to show playability? There can be a line on the right of the card that indicates rarity. A black solid line would indicate common. Rare would be a solid green line. Epic would be a red line. Legendary would be a blue or turquoise. It wouldn't be too hard to learn and would be distinguishable from bronze through gold.

The downside to the first fix is some people are color blind. The second idea would fix that. Since this is technically a game of two armys fighting each other then we should have military rank on the cards. Common would have no rank. Rare would be the equivalent of 1 stripe (US army private for reference but it can be any symbol really). Epic would be two stripes (corporal). Legendary would be three stripes (sergeant). To the average person, these symbols are exactly the same but grow in size. This would be easy for new players who no nothing of actual military rank to understand. I imagine this would be placed either on the top right of the card or the bottom right of the card. It can be small enough to not disrupt the art of the card but be clearly seen when highlighting the card.

 

[Nyanko73]

I think it's too early to decide the way CDPR handles rarity in this game is not good or not logical. The rarity might also be linked to the single player campaign and the way cards can be obtained there. I agree it seems a bit odd but as long as I don't have the full game to play with, I will reserve my final opinion for later on this matter.

 

[Mythic_Pilot]

I think it's too early to decide the way CDPR handles rarity in this game is not good or not logical. The rarity might also be linked to the single player campaign and the way cards can be obtained there. I agree it seems a bit odd but as long as I don't have the full game to play with, I will reserve my final opinion for later on this matter.

1-Beta is MP only.

2-Campaign and MP decks are spereated

 

[Nyanko73]

Are we completely sure about number 2?

 

[Clxmj]

Are we completely sure about number 2?

Yup, been stated by one of the developers. Can't remember what vid specifically but it had a cos player as Eredin or Triss and Max Scoville was hosting I believe, on Twitch or IGN.. Soz, can't remember I watched a few that day

It's better that way as they can create better stories and cards for single player* and worry about balance for multi player.

*"Behind closed doors, I learned what CD Projekt RED truly meant when they said that Gwent has a full single player campaign. It features fully voiced quests, an isometric over world, and branching dialogue choices. I was thoroughly blown away when the presentation shifted towards the campaign, only to hear Geralt's dulcet tones speaking in a JRPG-like animated scene. Gwent allows players to participate in untold Witcher stories, featuring characters both new and old. The characters are fully voiced, using actors from The Witcher 3, and play out in comic book-style scenes."

 

[Yourfacetm]

I think it's too early to decide the way CDPR handles rarity in this game is not good or not logical. The rarity might also be linked to the single player campaign and the way cards can be obtained there. I agree it seems a bit odd but as long as I don't have the full game to play with, I will reserve my final opinion for later on this matter.

We can say its too early to discuss anything about this game but that wouldn't help anybody. We have information that has been given to us and we should be as vocal as possible as to what we think. After all, they are making a game for us.

Granted, when they read feedback, most of the time they are probably saying "yes, we are already aware of this and have plans to deal with it" or "these posts are like this because they don't know what we haven't revealed yet which would surely change their opinions". We shouldn't let that stop us from talking about these things because if 1 out of 100 posts make them think 'oh, that's a problem that we didn't think of' then we have done our job in making this game a better game for release.

We don't know how the breaking down cards for in game currency will work and we don't know how hard it will be to get legendarys, but it is completely fair to be skeptical of bronze cards that you need three of to be legendary. It has potential to be very anti consumer and we should state our opinion. I think there should be visuals to establish rarity as well.

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

yeah.. less commons then legends is an issue we will be getting the same commons over and over again.

 

[Greyboxer]

This is a great issue to raise. Would love a RedPost here!

I think this has played out in similar ways in many other card games. There are alot of basic, deck building common and rare cards. CDPR expects us to fill those out quickly, while only obtaining a handful of high end cards. Having so many Legendaries means there are alot of high-end cards to chase...and lots of packs sold! That said, the players who arent dropping tons of $$ on packs will be building decks around the powerful and rare cards they do find, by using the common building blocks they have alot of.

What does Gwent look like after this? Early on, alot of decks are weak, similar. Maybe so many legendaries also means that people will have to drop too much money to have every.single.card out of the gates. That should make decks more varied and may make it very interesting to play early. From a game development standpoint, more rare cards means more cards to chase. For some, that will be a driving factor to continue to play.

 

[Nyanko73]

A handful of high end cards? How about those who open their wallet generously? Won't it create, early game, a big gap between players though?

 

[SentryOmega]

Ladies and Gentleman,

There is no point in such discussion right now, because the rarity of cards is a part of a marketing plan in the core, and only partially a game-design issue.

We really should wait for ALL the basic cards to be established and introduced before making any judgments on their rarity, and even then, all of it mostly will be defined by trial during the closed beta.

 

[LastAlpha]

I was also surprised by how few Bronze cards there are for each faction. There are even less bronze cards for Neutral.

 

[SkyHeadCaptain]

it's never to early to talk about something that's a problem Come on people we really need to see more common and bronze neutrals.

 

[Baba.Yaga]

A handful of high end cards? How about those who open their wallet generously? Won't it create, early game, a big gap between players though?

It really is about being fair so that F2P players can compete with those willing to spend a lot of cash to open packs.

 

[Guest 3893205]

Two things to keep in mind:

1) bronzes usually work in groups. Having one bronze in your deck is much worse than having 2 or 3. That is why you should not be counting bronze cards as singles - Gwent requires you to build decks with groups in mind and not single cards. I know that may seem a bit counter-intuitive but believe me, we gave a lot of thought to this.
2) at this point all leaders are legendary and yet they are not regular cards (although they can be won in kegs). We are thinking about this and we believe we have a good solution.

That being said all rarities are still being worked on and are subject to change.

As for the gap between paying and non-paying players - this is debatable. I would argue that an experienced player with well-thought deck that he earned through game progression has a fairly good chance of winning against someone who just bought 100 kegs and stuck some random legendary cards together.

 

[Mahakaman]

As for the gap between paying and non-paying players - this is debatable. I would argue that an experienced player with well-thought deck that he earned through game progression has a fairly good chance of winning against someone who just bought 100 kegs and stuck some random legendary cards together.

I am more interested in how 'fair' a match-up between two equally skilled players or deck-builders will play out when one player has barely scraped a half-decent deck together and the other player has access to all cards.
Earlier there was some talk of matching people not only accordingly to their rank but also according to their deck-rarity?

Could you also tell us more whether Kegs will be available to purchase with real money from the start of closed beta and if it's likely that there will be wipes?

 

[aroundofgwent]

You still didn't answer what I see as a huge issue - if bronze cards are supposed to be played in groups to work best, why are there legendary bronze cards? Won't it take waaay too much money/time to get 3 copies of them? I mean I can count the number of Legendaries I have pulled more than one copy of in HS on one hand, and I've been playing on and off since release! Or are you implying that one copy is enough and that you can triple it in the deckbuilding?

 

[Tarathelion]

You still didn't answer what I see as a huge issue - if bronze cards are supposed to be played in groups to work best, why are there legendary bronze cards? Won't it take waaay too much money/time to get 3 copies of them? I mean I can count the number of Legendaries I have pulled more than one copy of in HS on one hand, and I've been playing on and off since release! Or are you implying that one copy is enough and that you can triple it in the deckbuilding?

I think i all depends on odds, if majority of cards will be rare or better, just by probability you will receive more cards that are rare or better than you would receive common cards.. Besides you cannot complete your deck to soon as people need rewards for playing. Its not just about forcing people to pay money for cardpacks