Great Game to start off, my ability to comprehend it not so... I noticed the max amount of points went from 165 to a less amount? any reason for that happening? I started off with being able to have 25 cards which totaled 165. Now it's allowing 25 cards but maxing out the points at a lower number. Thanks for the assist. Keep up the progress, totally fun game.
And what happened to Operator? Serious dudes, does he look like a beast? And what is with the spawn and summon on it? It makes no sense at all. It's one or the other. Or is summon currently to play?
Before every deck had a maximum of 165 provisions and leaders provided a different number of mulligans. After this update, every deck has a minimum of 150 provisions plus extra provisions from the leader. So instead of giving mulligans, now the leaders add provisions to the basic 150 and everybody gets the same amount of mulligans per round (3/2-2-2).
The mulligan change feels like a significant improvement. No longer do you feel punished for starting the game with a poor hand and forced into burning your precious mulligans. The consistency also feels much better because you can freely spend mulligans every round. I do not see any negative aspects to this move. So GJ devs 
.
I don't think the change where you gain additional mulligans if drawing beyond the hand-limit changes R1 much. It's still highly questionable to pass R1 early because hand-limit leads to both players being at even cards going into R2. Although, it is an improvement in the sense you have the choice to do so without being punished for it. I do think it influences R2 in cases where you manage to take R1 at 5+ cards. Here you no longer feel forced to play into R2. You can instead opt to dry-pass and accrue additional mulligans. Granted, doing so depends heavily on which cards are in your hand and deck, respectively.
Removing leader ties to mulligans also feels like an improvement. I suppose it's technically the same change. However, the leader provision aspect may need to be fine tuned going forward. Certain leaders feel like they were buffed via this change when they probably should not have been. Others feel like they could use a bit more love. Perhaps as things settle my perspective here will change.
I'm still not sold on the Sihil change. Even though I cannot say I would miss it if the card stopped seeing play entirely. Artifacts could probably be radically changed across the board. Perhaps this will come later down the road.
Overall I'd rate these moves as an improvement.
.I don't think the change where you gain additional mulligans if drawing beyond the hand-limit changes R1 much. It's still highly questionable to pass R1 early because hand-limit leads to both players being at even cards going into R2. Although, it is an improvement in the sense you have the choice to do so without being punished for it. I do think it influences R2 in cases where you manage to take R1 at 5+ cards. Here you no longer feel forced to play into R2. You can instead opt to dry-pass and accrue additional mulligans. Granted, doing so depends heavily on which cards are in your hand and deck, respectively.
Removing leader ties to mulligans also feels like an improvement. I suppose it's technically the same change. However, the leader provision aspect may need to be fine tuned going forward. Certain leaders feel like they were buffed via this change when they probably should not have been. Others feel like they could use a bit more love. Perhaps as things settle my perspective here will change.
I'm still not sold on the Sihil change. Even though I cannot say I would miss it if the card stopped seeing play entirely
. Artifacts could probably be radically changed across the board. Perhaps this will come later down the road. Overall I'd rate these moves as an improvement.
You're one of those people who expected changes to the game not to result in any changes in the game... I'll keep that in mind should I encounter future feedback from you.
One question, is arachas quen so strong, that it has the lowest provisions cost? I barely see here mention here, only Eredin and Woodlandecks.
This is one example of why the added provisions from leaders will probably need tweaked. It's almost as if it's being looked at in terms of value in a vacuum. Value in a vacuum omits context. AQ and Unseen Elder can conceivably generate more value compared to Eredin and Woodlands. The key word here is conceivably. Furthermore, the value alone doesn't consider the utility benefit from 8 points of on-demand hand-buff or a 3 point buff plus Immune.
You're one of those people who expected changes to the game not to result in any changes in the game... I'll keep that in mind should I encounter future feedback from you.
I'm one of those people that don't fix a working tire. Now I'm bored to death with deterium bomb in my deck.
I'm one of those people that don't fix a working tire. Now I'm bored to death with deterium bomb in my deck.
Contrary to majority, I do not see mulligan change as good thing. I see it as way how to make game more easier, more forgiving, less skill depending, however I admit, that game is still much more skill depending than at example randomfest Hearthstone.
I am fan of "deep-games", where player has to think and mistake is felt, while recovering from mistake is not possible by random event or intentionally benevolent game mechanic. I like chess, I like go.
I made my own Gwent decks, with consistency in mind. As result of that, I put effort into deck building, which was presenting itself not only during gameplay, but also during drawing and mulliganing phase of each round. I do not like this mulligan change, because it is much more forgiving now and indirectly supports "gambling" with allowing to employ "riskier" deckbuilding, which can always be significantly corrected in mulligan phase by game mechanic.
I very much like Gwent for its focus on "deep-thinking", where results, which you get, are mostly result depending on your actions. I do not like mulligan change, because it weakens such factor and is "preventing" "bad luck" at drawing cards, which is not in fact bad luck, but result of your deckbuilding skills.
I am fan of "deep-games", where player has to think and mistake is felt, while recovering from mistake is not possible by random event or intentionally benevolent game mechanic. I like chess, I like go.
I made my own Gwent decks, with consistency in mind. As result of that, I put effort into deck building, which was presenting itself not only during gameplay, but also during drawing and mulliganing phase of each round. I do not like this mulligan change, because it is much more forgiving now and indirectly supports "gambling" with allowing to employ "riskier" deckbuilding, which can always be significantly corrected in mulligan phase by game mechanic.
I very much like Gwent for its focus on "deep-thinking", where results, which you get, are mostly result depending on your actions. I do not like mulligan change, because it weakens such factor and is "preventing" "bad luck" at drawing cards, which is not in fact bad luck, but result of your deckbuilding skills.
Previously your dominating strategy was to save you mulligans until last round. Due bad RNG. So you were forced to play your hand which depended on RNG, unless you had filler card such as roach and witches
I'm not following your logic here. How does deck building affect what you draw in round 1? This game doesn't have very many tutor cards either so there are going to be many decks at the mercy of luck and that isn't very interesting.
I think that one of the purpose of the leader provision is to avoid that a player can use the same strong deck only changing the leader. I think is the first try of CDPR to force the player in using some archetypes only with certain leader.
No, you're not the only one, as you can read in the following thread: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/and-gwent-is-uninstalled-sadly.10988969/
I would like to remind everyone that this is not the place to discuss it, even though the aforementioned thread has been locked.