You mean the Pit Trap, don't you? I think it makes sense. Fireball Trap triggers after the deploy effect, while Pit Trap acts immediately. However, you can still destroy other gold traps, such as Mahakam Horn, can't you?
PS: Even if I didn't play traps so far, I'm pretty happy to see them back!
Last edited:
One more thought:
Shadows & Shading:
Please reduce the shading/shadows over cards in hand and on the battlefield, or give a user option to adjust the darkness/transparency of the shadows/shading that are overlaid on cards.
The cards are much darker in hand than they are in the deck tracker and it makes them harder to see/read/enjoy.
For me, the sweet spot is probably about 1/3rd of the shadows/sharing you are currently adding to the cards, but I am sure others would have different preferences.
I was able to destroy one once with an artifact destroying card, but not another time.
I think it works when your unit triggers the trap to flip over, but not otherwise, but I am not sure, because I got inconsistent results.
Shadows & Shading:
Please reduce the shading/shadows over cards in hand and on the battlefield, or give a user option to adjust the darkness/transparency of the shadows/shading that are overlaid on cards.
The cards are much darker in hand than they are in the deck tracker and it makes them harder to see/read/enjoy.
For me, the sweet spot is probably about 1/3rd of the shadows/sharing you are currently adding to the cards, but I am sure others would have different preferences.
Post automatically merged:
I was able to destroy one once with an artifact destroying card, but not another time.
I think it works when your unit triggers the trap to flip over, but not otherwise, but I am not sure, because I got inconsistent results.
Last edited:
Hopefully my feedback doesn't come off as too negative since I actually enjoyed the new Gwent a lot, I'm only posting my complaints to reduce the size of this post.
TL;DR
-Usurper needs a rework
-Eithne is fun but should probably be reduced to 3 charges per round
-All leaders should get +1 mulligan (1 Mulligan leaders feel really bad to play)
-Being limited to 2 bronzes instead of 3 hurts consistency a lot
-The 3 witchers are op (raise provision costs)
-Hand Limit makes card advantage feel irrelevant, and the first 2 rounds often feel like an extended mulligan
Usurper -
Complaint: Though a lot of the leaders have balance issues Usurper is the only one whose effect I think is outright irredeemable. Leaders are a fun and core component of gwent which dictate the way you build your deck and influences your rounds in several ways. You try to bait out the powerful effect of your opponent if they are playing something like Adda. If they are playing Eithne you try to keep your rounds as short as possible to limit the value her effect gets. Even if you play against something entirely passive such as Arachas Queen you consider the extra value of destroying the enemy units so that your opponent can't consume or destroy them through other means to obtain their free Arachas. Usurper removes all of this interaction and doesn't add anything enjoyable to the game. You simply put him in your deck because he's good, automatically wins some leader reliant matchups, and he provides you an unfair advantage in every matchup you play against a leader that isn't Usurper because they expect that at least one or two of their cards will benefit off of their leaders effect, whereas you are completely aware of the fact that this won't be the case. In some cases he even automatically wins you a matchup, like when you play against Harald or Foltest, as a Foltest deck without Zeal is garbage and the Harald Deck is heavily reliant on his swing turn. Randomly losing because you ran into a Usurper player simply isn't fun.
Suggestion: Change Usurper to Mulligan 4 (maybe even 5). Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your turn. Charge: 5.
This keeps the idea of Usurper sabotaging the enemy leader and can be used intelligently to prevent your opponent from getting the intended value from their leader without removing the interaction outright.
If you play against Adda you can use Usurper's effect while you're setting up your engines so that she can't interfere with you. If you play against Eithne you can lock her out of one of her rounds, or simply prevent her from taking action when you're setting up your engines. If you play against Arachas Queen you can purposefully disable her passive when it looks like she's going to play Kayran, or that card that destroys all 1 power units to boost itself. It would still have its uses and flavor but wouldn't be a brainless leader that you slap into your deck to autowin some matchups. And it wouldn't be as oppressive to the game either.
Eithne -
Complaint: I actually really like Eithne, I played her a lot during the PTR and think that the leaders with effects that reset on round end are incredibly enjoyable to play as. But 4 charges feels like a bit too much since I felt like by using that with cards like Geralt: Professional, Dwarven Skirmisher and Alzur's Thunder I could remove every card my opponent tried to play.
Suggestion: Nerf Eithne to have 3 charges every round instead of 4.
Too Few Mulligans -
Complaint: Now that we don't have mulligans in round 2 and 3 it feels really weird to only have 1-4 mulligans on all leaders. Particularly for the leaders that only have 1 mulligan since you feel very rng dependent as you end up being stuck with your opening hand in a lot of cases (especially since Witchers and Roach feel so good right now). In addition to this because we have fewer copies of bronzes and less thinning our decks feel a lot less consistent so having less mulligans in addition to all of this feels weird.
Suggestion: Give all leaders +1 or +2 mulligans to improve consistency.
2 Bronze Limit -
Complaint: I'm actually not sure about whether or not this change even is bad since it encourages deck diversity by preventing us from slamming 3 copies of the same bronze into our deck, but at the same time it makes Gwent feel a lot more luck dependent than it used to because we can't draw our usual combos and our thinning cards (every 3 point unit that summons another 3 point unit from the deck), feel a lot worse to play. I would personally like to go back to having 3 copies of bronze cards but I can also see a lot of reasons as to why that could be a bad idea, please tell me your stance towards this.
Witchers (Eskel, Lambert and Vesemir) -
Complaint: These guys are crazy strong right now and there isn't a reason to avoid auto including them into every deck you build. With a provision cost of 6 there is no expense to running them. Because of how rare thinning is at the moment the Witchers are crazy since they thin 2 cards from your deck and provide you with a 12 point tempo play in a world where its insanely difficult to get a 10 point play.
Suggestion: Raise provision costs to 7 or 8. There needs to be some cost to playing them.
Hand Limit -
Complaint: Even though the Hand Limit really helps prevent dry passes in round 1, it just makes the first 2 rounds feel like longer mulligan phases. Both players know that the first 6 cards they play have no worth because they'll redraw them anyway, even if their opponent passes after playing 1 card. This is particularly annoying because it makes card advantage feel a lot less valuable, even though it was the strongest advantage you could get in gwent for the longest time. I can spend 6 cards to win round 1 even if my opponent only plays 1 card because I can just dry pass in the second round and bam, I played 5 more cards than my opponent but we still have equal cards and my cards are probably worth more because I've in all likelihood played the 6 worst cards in my hand effectively meaning that I just spent the first 2 rounds to mulligan. It also feels horrible to watch when this happens to you by the way, particularly because for some reason the turns felt more drawn out, since you just sit there for 5 turns while your opponent mulligans.
Suggestion: Maybe players should draw up to 3 cards, but stop drawing if either of their hands fill up. So if one player passes with 9 cards and the other passes with 7 cards, both players will only draw 1 card. By doing this card advantage stays the same and players lose the ability to abuse the hand limit as a mulligan phase. It also helps against dry passes in round 2, since people wouldn't be able to slam 6 cards to win round 1 and then dry pass round 2 to refill their hand.
TL;DR
-Usurper needs a rework
-Eithne is fun but should probably be reduced to 3 charges per round
-All leaders should get +1 mulligan (1 Mulligan leaders feel really bad to play)
-Being limited to 2 bronzes instead of 3 hurts consistency a lot
-The 3 witchers are op (raise provision costs)
-Hand Limit makes card advantage feel irrelevant, and the first 2 rounds often feel like an extended mulligan
Usurper -
Complaint: Though a lot of the leaders have balance issues Usurper is the only one whose effect I think is outright irredeemable. Leaders are a fun and core component of gwent which dictate the way you build your deck and influences your rounds in several ways. You try to bait out the powerful effect of your opponent if they are playing something like Adda. If they are playing Eithne you try to keep your rounds as short as possible to limit the value her effect gets. Even if you play against something entirely passive such as Arachas Queen you consider the extra value of destroying the enemy units so that your opponent can't consume or destroy them through other means to obtain their free Arachas. Usurper removes all of this interaction and doesn't add anything enjoyable to the game. You simply put him in your deck because he's good, automatically wins some leader reliant matchups, and he provides you an unfair advantage in every matchup you play against a leader that isn't Usurper because they expect that at least one or two of their cards will benefit off of their leaders effect, whereas you are completely aware of the fact that this won't be the case. In some cases he even automatically wins you a matchup, like when you play against Harald or Foltest, as a Foltest deck without Zeal is garbage and the Harald Deck is heavily reliant on his swing turn. Randomly losing because you ran into a Usurper player simply isn't fun.
Suggestion: Change Usurper to Mulligan 4 (maybe even 5). Order: Deactivate the enemy leader until the start of your turn. Charge: 5.
This keeps the idea of Usurper sabotaging the enemy leader and can be used intelligently to prevent your opponent from getting the intended value from their leader without removing the interaction outright.
If you play against Adda you can use Usurper's effect while you're setting up your engines so that she can't interfere with you. If you play against Eithne you can lock her out of one of her rounds, or simply prevent her from taking action when you're setting up your engines. If you play against Arachas Queen you can purposefully disable her passive when it looks like she's going to play Kayran, or that card that destroys all 1 power units to boost itself. It would still have its uses and flavor but wouldn't be a brainless leader that you slap into your deck to autowin some matchups. And it wouldn't be as oppressive to the game either.
Eithne -
Complaint: I actually really like Eithne, I played her a lot during the PTR and think that the leaders with effects that reset on round end are incredibly enjoyable to play as. But 4 charges feels like a bit too much since I felt like by using that with cards like Geralt: Professional, Dwarven Skirmisher and Alzur's Thunder I could remove every card my opponent tried to play.
Suggestion: Nerf Eithne to have 3 charges every round instead of 4.
Too Few Mulligans -
Complaint: Now that we don't have mulligans in round 2 and 3 it feels really weird to only have 1-4 mulligans on all leaders. Particularly for the leaders that only have 1 mulligan since you feel very rng dependent as you end up being stuck with your opening hand in a lot of cases (especially since Witchers and Roach feel so good right now). In addition to this because we have fewer copies of bronzes and less thinning our decks feel a lot less consistent so having less mulligans in addition to all of this feels weird.
Suggestion: Give all leaders +1 or +2 mulligans to improve consistency.
2 Bronze Limit -
Complaint: I'm actually not sure about whether or not this change even is bad since it encourages deck diversity by preventing us from slamming 3 copies of the same bronze into our deck, but at the same time it makes Gwent feel a lot more luck dependent than it used to because we can't draw our usual combos and our thinning cards (every 3 point unit that summons another 3 point unit from the deck), feel a lot worse to play. I would personally like to go back to having 3 copies of bronze cards but I can also see a lot of reasons as to why that could be a bad idea, please tell me your stance towards this.
Witchers (Eskel, Lambert and Vesemir) -
Complaint: These guys are crazy strong right now and there isn't a reason to avoid auto including them into every deck you build. With a provision cost of 6 there is no expense to running them. Because of how rare thinning is at the moment the Witchers are crazy since they thin 2 cards from your deck and provide you with a 12 point tempo play in a world where its insanely difficult to get a 10 point play.
Suggestion: Raise provision costs to 7 or 8. There needs to be some cost to playing them.
Hand Limit -
Complaint: Even though the Hand Limit really helps prevent dry passes in round 1, it just makes the first 2 rounds feel like longer mulligan phases. Both players know that the first 6 cards they play have no worth because they'll redraw them anyway, even if their opponent passes after playing 1 card. This is particularly annoying because it makes card advantage feel a lot less valuable, even though it was the strongest advantage you could get in gwent for the longest time. I can spend 6 cards to win round 1 even if my opponent only plays 1 card because I can just dry pass in the second round and bam, I played 5 more cards than my opponent but we still have equal cards and my cards are probably worth more because I've in all likelihood played the 6 worst cards in my hand effectively meaning that I just spent the first 2 rounds to mulligan. It also feels horrible to watch when this happens to you by the way, particularly because for some reason the turns felt more drawn out, since you just sit there for 5 turns while your opponent mulligans.
Suggestion: Maybe players should draw up to 3 cards, but stop drawing if either of their hands fill up. So if one player passes with 9 cards and the other passes with 7 cards, both players will only draw 1 card. By doing this card advantage stays the same and players lose the ability to abuse the hand limit as a mulligan phase. It also helps against dry passes in round 2, since people wouldn't be able to slam 6 cards to win round 1 and then dry pass round 2 to refill their hand.
Please add a glow of the player’s cards, as now implemented in the game. It is very convenient
Probably, when you tried to destroy one and you couldn't, your opponent had played Pit Trap, which triggers before the deploy effect. It could be also a bug. But I'm pretty sure they don't want traps to be immune to destroying-artifact mechanics.
This is my second and last feedback. I sent this part of playgwent.com/support, but reposting here for the community.
Broken Mechanics:
Discard as an archetype is against HC's principle. Number of tutors are reduced, more cards (were at least initially planned), and 2 bronzes were all so that each game is (at least) unique and different. And it works beautifully for each other faction and archetype, except for Discard. Discard can play every single card, in every single game (at least nearly). This gives Discard incredible consistency like no other faction or archetype. This is broken and should be fixed. Pleas think of something to fix it (or entirely remove it from game). On top of my mind:
1) Cards that discard should have 1 or 2 strength max. Even gold card shouldn't discard 3 cards. [Super Thinning is never good]
2) Cards that discard should discard random cards.
Bearmasters: This card should be nerfed. I played a game in which the opponent played 4 Bearmasters (with FP, and Operator. Renew was used for the dude spanning 4 cows). In R3, I had 30ish points and the opponent had 70+ points. 70+!!! It is purely insane and no where near any other game I faced. Possible Fix on top of my mind:
1) Bearmaster should be a Gold card (so that max he can be used twice).
2) There should be a max cap for the amount of boost he can do
3) Bearmaster should banish the beasts in the GY and boost
4) Bearmaster should only count Bears in the GY.
HeraldTheCripple:
10 Damage is bloody too much. (I am not talking from TwoSword combo, which is insane, just 10 damage in itself is too powerful). So, as long as the ability is present, we can't deploy engine cards unless there is way more points on board. With reduced STR and engine cards being even weaker, this simply denies engine cards. Possible Fix:
1) Reduce the damage he an do, obviously.
2) Give him 1 mulligan charge.
3) He shouldn't target the same unit again (like Phillipa in current Gwent)
Regis: He shouldn't gain a wave/charge for every units killed. He should gain one wave/charge per wave. If I have 1, 1, 1, 4 units, it should only do 2 waves and not 4 waves. It will at least need planning to align the strengths to be 1, 2, 3, 4..etc.
Currently Vesemir, Eskel, and Lambert are auto-include due to very high point swing and thinning (along with Roach, it is insane). They should either have low power swing or should cost more provision cost.
I already mentioned about Usurper and I am glad that most of the community also feels the same (yes, I read almost all the comments). Please build decks based on their leaders. Cancelling the leader for the entire battle will be too bad. No other archetype can exist (except for Discard which is even more ridiculous and can survive this).
Broken Mechanics:
Discard as an archetype is against HC's principle. Number of tutors are reduced, more cards (were at least initially planned), and 2 bronzes were all so that each game is (at least) unique and different. And it works beautifully for each other faction and archetype, except for Discard. Discard can play every single card, in every single game (at least nearly). This gives Discard incredible consistency like no other faction or archetype. This is broken and should be fixed. Pleas think of something to fix it (or entirely remove it from game). On top of my mind:
1) Cards that discard should have 1 or 2 strength max. Even gold card shouldn't discard 3 cards. [Super Thinning is never good]
2) Cards that discard should discard random cards.
Bearmasters: This card should be nerfed. I played a game in which the opponent played 4 Bearmasters (with FP, and Operator. Renew was used for the dude spanning 4 cows). In R3, I had 30ish points and the opponent had 70+ points. 70+!!! It is purely insane and no where near any other game I faced. Possible Fix on top of my mind:
1) Bearmaster should be a Gold card (so that max he can be used twice).
2) There should be a max cap for the amount of boost he can do
3) Bearmaster should banish the beasts in the GY and boost
4) Bearmaster should only count Bears in the GY.
HeraldTheCripple:
10 Damage is bloody too much. (I am not talking from TwoSword combo, which is insane, just 10 damage in itself is too powerful). So, as long as the ability is present, we can't deploy engine cards unless there is way more points on board. With reduced STR and engine cards being even weaker, this simply denies engine cards. Possible Fix:
1) Reduce the damage he an do, obviously.
2) Give him 1 mulligan charge.
3) He shouldn't target the same unit again (like Phillipa in current Gwent)
Regis: He shouldn't gain a wave/charge for every units killed. He should gain one wave/charge per wave. If I have 1, 1, 1, 4 units, it should only do 2 waves and not 4 waves. It will at least need planning to align the strengths to be 1, 2, 3, 4..etc.
Currently Vesemir, Eskel, and Lambert are auto-include due to very high point swing and thinning (along with Roach, it is insane). They should either have low power swing or should cost more provision cost.
I already mentioned about Usurper and I am glad that most of the community also feels the same (yes, I read almost all the comments). Please build decks based on their leaders. Cancelling the leader for the entire battle will be too bad. No other archetype can exist (except for Discard which is even more ridiculous and can survive this).
It still keeps the usurper flavor, but it'd not be unhealthy. Really cool suggestion!
Constructive Feedback
Bug - When Farseer finds Aelirenn from her orders Aelirenn never triggers after that in the same round.
Coin flip Improvements - I liked the +5 boost to the starting player with the option of when to use it. I liked the 3 card drawing per round and how it encourages playing into all rounds. I tended to leave mulligans to the last round and eject bad cards in round one and two. Perhaps this will make the game a little stale but I think if you follow such a strategy in round two it is pretty risky. Please consider "banishing" cards that you over draw as the current mechanic plays into graveyard strategies.
Leader abilities - Ethne was vastly overpowered and might even be so if she had 3 charges. Brouver is often associated with movement when I feel he should be more closely associated with more provisions. Eredins ability is questionable. Ursurpers ability I thought was very good but I would give it a charge and make it only available for 2, maybe even 1 round.
Leader Mulligans - Francesca's 1 mulligan really discourages her play. How about adding cards to your deck that add mulligans when you play or use their orders?
Immune - I found immune to be a questionable card ability. It shutdowns many styles of play and there are not enough counters. Consider changing the mechanic or making cards with the immune ability more expensive. Eredins ability will hurt card development because immune can be too good.
Armour - I miss armour. Maybe coming with the Redannians? I enjoyed the orders and deploy differences.
Balance - Obviously card balance is a little out of wack I hope that every card would be a hard choice to place in your deck. Some are just obvious trash, some auto includes. A faction card perhaps could be slightly better than a neutral card that more or less does the same thing, not the other way around.
Graphics - I found the graphics a little too dark, I found myself wanting to pick out more details. My two laptops struggle with the graphics on the lowest quality unlike previous Gwent. I hope you can make improvements there.
Animations - I found that the animations were not as snappy as I would like even on my PC. I would like many of the animations to be a little faster and snappier.
Sound - Almost perfect but I think some people might find some of the leader idle emote sounds to be annoying. Perhaps an option to toggle them off.
Provisions and Deck-building - Perfect! Keep on with the balancing
Tutoring - Some factions had more tools to tutor out cards than others with bronze cores. I felt this a little unbalanced.
Bug - When Farseer finds Aelirenn from her orders Aelirenn never triggers after that in the same round.
Coin flip Improvements - I liked the +5 boost to the starting player with the option of when to use it. I liked the 3 card drawing per round and how it encourages playing into all rounds. I tended to leave mulligans to the last round and eject bad cards in round one and two. Perhaps this will make the game a little stale but I think if you follow such a strategy in round two it is pretty risky. Please consider "banishing" cards that you over draw as the current mechanic plays into graveyard strategies.
Leader abilities - Ethne was vastly overpowered and might even be so if she had 3 charges. Brouver is often associated with movement when I feel he should be more closely associated with more provisions. Eredins ability is questionable. Ursurpers ability I thought was very good but I would give it a charge and make it only available for 2, maybe even 1 round.
Leader Mulligans - Francesca's 1 mulligan really discourages her play. How about adding cards to your deck that add mulligans when you play or use their orders?
Immune - I found immune to be a questionable card ability. It shutdowns many styles of play and there are not enough counters. Consider changing the mechanic or making cards with the immune ability more expensive. Eredins ability will hurt card development because immune can be too good.
Armour - I miss armour. Maybe coming with the Redannians? I enjoyed the orders and deploy differences.
Balance - Obviously card balance is a little out of wack
I hope that every card would be a hard choice to place in your deck. Some are just obvious trash, some auto includes. A faction card perhaps could be slightly better than a neutral card that more or less does the same thing, not the other way around.Graphics - I found the graphics a little too dark, I found myself wanting to pick out more details. My two laptops struggle with the graphics on the lowest quality unlike previous Gwent. I hope you can make improvements there
.Animations - I found that the animations were not as snappy as I would like even on my PC. I would like many of the animations to be a little faster and snappier.
Sound - Almost perfect but I think some people might find some of the leader idle emote sounds to be annoying. Perhaps an option to toggle them off.
Provisions and Deck-building - Perfect! Keep on with the balancing
Tutoring - Some factions had more tools to tutor out cards than others with bronze cores. I felt this a little unbalanced.
Last edited:
Would like to move the cards around like we can in current gwent, instead of clicking the card, then clicking the placement. A special highlight for cards with abilities that only work on certain rows would be great. Lastly my biggest Issue with PTR was how slow the games were, taking twice as long as current gwent. Auto ending turns when you have no orders would be great start.
1 .Design.. at first it felt like any other card game and honestly I do not like that but.. I can get use to it.
2. Regis "1234" is a badass now + Geralt:Igni + Scorch = its the best but maybe it is a bit too much? Sooo easy to control, especially with Scoiatel.
3. Northern Realms - never a great fan of this faction. I saw Vernon Roche and I tried to built something around it but it is so easy to spoil my job by any opponent. Order+charge archtype is difficult and slow - unless no one attacks you ..rrright. BUT there is a remedy for many strategies in most factions >> point 4
4. IMMUNE! - Avallach saves the day! I wish there would be more counter cards like this. Not just immune maybe something else or immune with countdown? one dwarf in scoia seems fit
5. MONSTERS CONSUME - come to me! = see point 2
6. Mulligan is ok but 10 CARDS hand + 3 after each round IS NOT. Now I can play safe until I have 3-4 on my hand. No pressure here. This needs some balance. Maybe just 2 cards each round and up to 11 max?
7. At the moment I didnt find any good synergy for weather cards. More options to trigger them by others at least - that would be nice.
8. DIVERSITY is poor. Add something crazy. I bet its hard when this can make some IMBA tactics but slowly not some big badasses like Sabath - i love this card but it was too much. Ideas:
- random point swap between allies, even points too.
- pain: when you hit a card with PAIN you take half damage also.
- hidden abilities like ABSORB given to one ally by another or leader so the opponent doesnt now
- bounce back
- good old TANK
- archtype or even faction that FEEDs on damage
UPDATE>>
- GUESS: at the "END GAME" (guys who know exactly what opponent might do next) a card that gives you an opportunity to GUESS opponent next card power. If you do it right, he can not play it or it adds amount to you. THAT would be nice, poker like counter
NO MORE for now. I don't want to bore you too much
2. Regis "1234" is a badass now + Geralt:Igni + Scorch = its the best but maybe it is a bit too much? Sooo easy to control, especially with Scoiatel.
3. Northern Realms - never a great fan of this faction. I saw Vernon Roche and I tried to built something around it but it is so easy to spoil my job by any opponent. Order+charge archtype is difficult and slow - unless no one attacks you ..rrright. BUT there is a remedy for many strategies in most factions >> point 4
4. IMMUNE! - Avallach saves the day! I wish there would be more counter cards like this. Not just immune maybe something else or immune with countdown? one dwarf in scoia seems fit
5. MONSTERS CONSUME - come to me! = see point 2
6. Mulligan is ok but 10 CARDS hand + 3 after each round IS NOT. Now I can play safe until I have 3-4 on my hand. No pressure here. This needs some balance. Maybe just 2 cards each round and up to 11 max?
7. At the moment I didnt find any good synergy for weather cards. More options to trigger them by others at least - that would be nice.
8. DIVERSITY is poor. Add something crazy. I bet its hard when this can make some IMBA tactics but slowly not some big badasses like Sabath - i love this card but it was too much. Ideas:
- random point swap between allies, even points too.
- pain: when you hit a card with PAIN you take half damage also.
- hidden abilities like ABSORB given to one ally by another or leader so the opponent doesnt now
- bounce back
- good old TANK
- archtype or even faction that FEEDs on damage
UPDATE>>
- GUESS: at the "END GAME" (guys who know exactly what opponent might do next) a card that gives you an opportunity to GUESS opponent next card power. If you do it right, he can not play it or it adds amount to you. THAT would be nice, poker like counter
NO MORE for now. I don't want to bore you too much
Last edited:
General Gameplay
1. Two Bronzes -
There is a lack of consistency in two bronzes decks, which makes the game more draw dependant, something Gwent wasn’t necessarily about, for the better if you ask me, or at least it allowed the game to be unique compared to the other card games in the market.
To give an example I’m sure we could play a full “Axemen” deck if we could have three copies of Greatswords and Dimun Warship, but it’s for now too limited, similarly the Spectral archetype for Northern Realms would benefit a lot from three bronzes. Overall I think three bronzes would make deck building for an even more interesting deck building experience.
Of course the game isn't balanced to have three copies of bronzes, but it could potentially be through provision. The third bronze could cost twice the initial provision cost to be included in the deck, so for a 6 provision card you’d need 12 provision to put a third copy in your deck, which means you need to choose between having a stronger bronze base or having more golds. If twice is too much, because it might be, you could increase the cost to 50%/75% from the initial costs, so to keep the same example you'd go from 6 to 9 with a 50% increase.
2. Mulligans Tied To Leaders -
I don’t think it’s the right way to balance the leader’s ability, because it make some leaders, for instance Francesca, de facto worse than others just because they have a low mulligan. It’s obviously a balance issue, but even if this find the right balance spot it still doesn't feel right to lose mulligans for a leader ability.
I’d rather have leaders costing provisions, of course you’d have to increase the provision ceiling which might affect the overall balance.
3. Blacklisting -
When I mulligan cards I don’t want to immediately draw into the same cards again, it’s just frustrating particularly on low mulligan leaders, it makes the game more draw dependant than it should be and it doesn't feel right.
General
1. Arachas Queen Model Is An Arachas Behemoth -
That's it, I'd appreciate the model to reflect an actual Arachas Queen (here's a picture, the queen is the middle one).
2. Auto-End Turn When You Have No Order or Leader Ability
It can be a bit annoying to always press it multiple time, as annoying as resolve in Magic the Gathering Arena (but they have an automatic pass), and new player are probably going to forget to press "end turn", a stronger highlight would also help.
3. Increase The Speed of Orders and Leader Abilities
The game would be less slow and would feel smoother.
UI
1. More Filters in the Deck Building
We need a filter for Units, Special Cards, and Artefact. We also need to filter cards based on their strength.
2. An Overview of the Deck
It'd be nice to have an overview where we see all the cards in the deck, rather than having to scroll down, this overview could also be accompanied with statistics showing the ratio of cards for their provision cost and strength, Magic the gathering Arena does that with mana cost.
3. Sideboard
To take again Magic as an example, the side board is a nice way to put counter to specific decks and adapt your deck quickly.
4. Preferred Rows on Cards
I think it'd help a lot of new players to directly see a symbol for the preferred rows directly on the cards in addition to the text.
5. A Lot of Cards Description Are Either Misleading, False, or Incomplete.
6. The Wheel of Emote Can Be A Bit Misleading
So When I used 'Damn it" after a misplay I thought it'd reflect my frustration, but it's actually for most leaders to show impatience, so I'd rather see the wheel say "Impatient" to better reflect the emote.
Balance
I'll be short because there is already a lot of feedback, and I'll try to touch on feedback I haven't see too much.
1. Northern Realms and Order Units
The faction has a lot of order units, which I like, but therefore is very vulnerable to control, particularly direct damage, therefore I think Armour should come back as an additional tool to balance order units and other engines, it can also be used later on to have an Armour archetype.
2. Bekker’s Dark Mirror, Mandrake, and Artefact Compression
Bekker’s Dark Mirror, Mandrake, and Artefact Compression are very similar cards, but Bekker’s Dark Mirror is clearly the better as it’ll always reach more value, because it deals damage back after what is basically a reset, but also is more versatile, you can use it to heal then boost.
The issue isn’t necessary Bekker’s Dark Mirror, it’s actually an amazing card, though its provision cost should probably be increased from 7 to 9.
Artefact Compression should work similarly to what it does in live, it should transform a bronze into a token, first because it’s more lore accurate but more importantly because it allow you to banish a card played on the board in order to deny a resurrection, so allow me to propose to following:
Artefact Compression – 8 Provision – Transform a non-boosted unit into a Jade Figurine (one strength token).
Mandrake should also work similarly to what it does live, I know you shied away from strengthening effect, and while it brought a lot of issue to Gwent, I think in small measures it’s a very interesting effect as you invest resources for the next rounds, again allow me to propose the following:
Mandrake – 8 Provision – Strengthen a unit by three then reset it, or weaken a unit by three then reset it.
3. Tokens Should Be Doomed
Arachas Drone not being doomed really make Mourntart an insanely strong unit, similarly Cows not being doomed make Bearmaster an easy 15+ points finisher for 4 provision. Moreover copies of Cursed Knight should be doomed in order to not be pulled by the Henselt/Pavetta combo.
4. Henselt
He can be abused a bit too much, even though he arguably requires an important set-up which can be denied. However making him pulling only one copy would put him in the trash compactor, same for Pavetta, so the balance here needs to be careful. I think the worse issue comes with Cursed Knight, and the solution might be in my point 3.
5. Monsters and Gold Copies
It's a lot of fun but I can definitely see how Caranthir and Whispering Hillock might be abused to create multiple copies of strong cards, such as Phoenix. I'd hate to see them gone because they enable interesting combos, but they'll need to be looked at closely.
1. Two Bronzes -
There is a lack of consistency in two bronzes decks, which makes the game more draw dependant, something Gwent wasn’t necessarily about, for the better if you ask me, or at least it allowed the game to be unique compared to the other card games in the market.
To give an example I’m sure we could play a full “Axemen” deck if we could have three copies of Greatswords and Dimun Warship, but it’s for now too limited, similarly the Spectral archetype for Northern Realms would benefit a lot from three bronzes. Overall I think three bronzes would make deck building for an even more interesting deck building experience.
Of course the game isn't balanced to have three copies of bronzes, but it could potentially be through provision. The third bronze could cost twice the initial provision cost to be included in the deck, so for a 6 provision card you’d need 12 provision to put a third copy in your deck, which means you need to choose between having a stronger bronze base or having more golds. If twice is too much, because it might be, you could increase the cost to 50%/75% from the initial costs, so to keep the same example you'd go from 6 to 9 with a 50% increase.
2. Mulligans Tied To Leaders -
I don’t think it’s the right way to balance the leader’s ability, because it make some leaders, for instance Francesca, de facto worse than others just because they have a low mulligan. It’s obviously a balance issue, but even if this find the right balance spot it still doesn't feel right to lose mulligans for a leader ability.
I’d rather have leaders costing provisions, of course you’d have to increase the provision ceiling which might affect the overall balance.
3. Blacklisting -
When I mulligan cards I don’t want to immediately draw into the same cards again, it’s just frustrating particularly on low mulligan leaders, it makes the game more draw dependant than it should be and it doesn't feel right.
General
1. Arachas Queen Model Is An Arachas Behemoth -
That's it, I'd appreciate the model to reflect an actual Arachas Queen (here's a picture, the queen is the middle one).
2. Auto-End Turn When You Have No Order or Leader Ability
It can be a bit annoying to always press it multiple time, as annoying as resolve in Magic the Gathering Arena (but they have an automatic pass), and new player are probably going to forget to press "end turn", a stronger highlight would also help.
3. Increase The Speed of Orders and Leader Abilities
The game would be less slow and would feel smoother.
UI
1. More Filters in the Deck Building
We need a filter for Units, Special Cards, and Artefact. We also need to filter cards based on their strength.
2. An Overview of the Deck
It'd be nice to have an overview where we see all the cards in the deck, rather than having to scroll down, this overview could also be accompanied with statistics showing the ratio of cards for their provision cost and strength, Magic the gathering Arena does that with mana cost.
3. Sideboard
To take again Magic as an example, the side board is a nice way to put counter to specific decks and adapt your deck quickly.
4. Preferred Rows on Cards
I think it'd help a lot of new players to directly see a symbol for the preferred rows directly on the cards in addition to the text.
5. A Lot of Cards Description Are Either Misleading, False, or Incomplete.
6. The Wheel of Emote Can Be A Bit Misleading
So When I used 'Damn it" after a misplay I thought it'd reflect my frustration, but it's actually for most leaders to show impatience, so I'd rather see the wheel say "Impatient" to better reflect the emote.
Balance
I'll be short because there is already a lot of feedback, and I'll try to touch on feedback I haven't see too much.
1. Northern Realms and Order Units
The faction has a lot of order units, which I like, but therefore is very vulnerable to control, particularly direct damage, therefore I think Armour should come back as an additional tool to balance order units and other engines, it can also be used later on to have an Armour archetype.
2. Bekker’s Dark Mirror, Mandrake, and Artefact Compression
Bekker’s Dark Mirror, Mandrake, and Artefact Compression are very similar cards, but Bekker’s Dark Mirror is clearly the better as it’ll always reach more value, because it deals damage back after what is basically a reset, but also is more versatile, you can use it to heal then boost.
The issue isn’t necessary Bekker’s Dark Mirror, it’s actually an amazing card, though its provision cost should probably be increased from 7 to 9.
Artefact Compression should work similarly to what it does in live, it should transform a bronze into a token, first because it’s more lore accurate but more importantly because it allow you to banish a card played on the board in order to deny a resurrection, so allow me to propose to following:
Artefact Compression – 8 Provision – Transform a non-boosted unit into a Jade Figurine (one strength token).
Mandrake should also work similarly to what it does live, I know you shied away from strengthening effect, and while it brought a lot of issue to Gwent, I think in small measures it’s a very interesting effect as you invest resources for the next rounds, again allow me to propose the following:
Mandrake – 8 Provision – Strengthen a unit by three then reset it, or weaken a unit by three then reset it.
3. Tokens Should Be Doomed
Arachas Drone not being doomed really make Mourntart an insanely strong unit, similarly Cows not being doomed make Bearmaster an easy 15+ points finisher for 4 provision. Moreover copies of Cursed Knight should be doomed in order to not be pulled by the Henselt/Pavetta combo.
4. Henselt
He can be abused a bit too much, even though he arguably requires an important set-up which can be denied. However making him pulling only one copy would put him in the trash compactor, same for Pavetta, so the balance here needs to be careful. I think the worse issue comes with Cursed Knight, and the solution might be in my point 3.
5. Monsters and Gold Copies
It's a lot of fun but I can definitely see how Caranthir and Whispering Hillock might be abused to create multiple copies of strong cards, such as Phoenix. I'd hate to see them gone because they enable interesting combos, but they'll need to be looked at closely.
Sure, let's give it a go.
I'm not gonna talk about current system as there's more or less an agreement in the current community that current row system is almost meaningless. Let me know, if you disagree with this. I can also share my opinion on this. Probably not in this thread though as I don't wanna sidetrack it.
So what's good in the new row-system:
- Reach mechanic obviously makes the list. It capitalizes on row placement and gives solid basis. It's simple and elegant: you have the vulnerable, but offensive Melee row and the more protected Ranged row. Reach 1 goes melee-to-melee, Reach 2 you have to decide to protect your card or target the ones your opponent tries to protect. It's also a choice whether you only want to protect your key engines, or want to spam Ranked row denying opponents Reach 1 (and Ranged Reach 2) cards risking a big Lacerate.
- Then there are the cards that trigger only from one row. I think that's better than simple row-locking as it gives you options and while you pretty much have to place your stronger Golds on the "right" row, with bronzes you could often get by without the added benefit. I got punished a couple times when wanted to maximize effect of all my row-locked cards. Since we usually start the round with our bronzes, we have to anticipate and make these decision beforehand. If new Gwent manages to evolve into a meaningful 3-round game, then you also gonna have to plan from start which row-locked Golds you wanna play in this round and which one later - if necessary adapting on the way as round goes on into more risky plays.
- Choose row for effect cards add even more complexity to this, as it may be non-obvious which is the right row from ability aspect (although very often it is).
- There are also cards with less obvious row considerations like Magne Division which is one of the more interesting generic bronzes. It's usually your first play and you have to decide right then which row to put him on based on your and opponent's anticipated cards so that you can benefit from its ability for as long as possible (assuming he won't just get insta-killed of course ). You also have to decide during the round when to put your first unit next to him (shutting him down in the process), because you want to play a row ability or just for the sake of avoiding excessive row stacking.
- Then we have punish cards like Lacerate what we already know from old Gwent, but with less rows to distribute units among and the added restrictions, it's not that easy to dodge these cards anymore. You no longer have to build the entire deck around movement or row-stack encouragement (e.g. weathers) to get decent value from these cards.
- Also we do not have these punish effects on dedicated hate cards only, but also on archetype cards like Deathwish Kitten (formerly Blood Moon, don't recall its proper name right now). Granted there's not many of these latter effects right now, but more on that later.
- It's also nice to see more effects that capitalize on placement than plain "damage everything on one row", like Blue Mountain Elites or that NG Soldier unit that damages by number of the units on the other row. Many cards capitalize on adjacent placement as well: trying to play around Arachas Venom seems like an interesting challenge.
- While as mentioned there are some punish cards, there aren't that many that gets played. Probably it's just not that easy to make randomly room for a Lacerate in most decks. I still see possibility for it to become at least a tech card.
- As mentioned before there are not too many archetype cards capitalizing on placement. We have archetype synergy cards with bland effects. And we have cards with interesting mechanics that capitalize on opponent's row placement on cards that have no synergy with anything, so don't find a place in any of the decks. The solution is obvious for me: move the interesting effect to archetype cards, redesign the other card from scratch.
- I also see that Reach cards are usually not punished for Melee row placement. I mean they can be punished indirectly if they get played into row-hate cards, but most of them you don't really want to protect to consider Ranged row placement as they only have Deploy effect. A positive example in this sense is Imlerith or Ves as you have to decide whether you want to target enemy's engines on Ranged or protect your own Order activation. A less obvious example of the mechanic utilized well is Cyclops who you also don't have to protect, but the enemy can keep weakening your viable cannon fodder cards on Melee so adds a nice possibility for counterplay.
- I don't think that any-row cards and any-row eliminations are properly priced at the moment. They should be either of higher cost or more conditional or risky plays. I see this mainly as a balance issue. I mean why play into Ranged row for protection, if it's not much harder to eliminate your unit there? Why worry about row-stacking if you can fill up your deck with enough any-row units to balance out the row-restricted ones?
- I also think it needs some more fiddling in general to find out which cards and abilities should be row-restricted (and to which row) to have impact, but not too much impact. (Right now we're more on the not enough impact side it seems.) No wonder, it's a pretty hard balancing problem.
- With more rows it becomes more easy to play around punish cards.
- Row-restricted abilities would also get distributed into more rows weakening the restriction.
- Choose row for effect cards would become impossible to balance in the masses. Coming up with 3 viable and sort of equal options is challenging enough. Weighing in which rows to put which effect (considering which rows other cards would get played) seems like a nightmare. Or you may make them activate an effect on multiple rows, again weakening the impact of row placement restrictions.
- It seems like an overcomplication for no good reason.
- I started my description with how 2-rows feel simple and elegant. It's also more intuitive. What would be the role of Ranged row in this system? You want your engines on Siege row, offensive cards on Melee, what to put into Ranged? "Protected but not that much protected"?
- Same with Reach. We would have Reach 1-4. What would Reach 2 do in this system? Or 3 or 4? Again it's very intuitive with 2 rows, seems overcomplicated with 3.
- Still only the same general rules would apply: put your units as backwards as possible to protect, while also avoiding excessive row-stacking and choose the row for effect intended. Choosing the right would just become a harder memory game to recall which possible enemy units have which row-restriction or exact Reach value. I see no real added depth.
- UPDATE: Less tutors mean less units on the board, 2 rows seem more fitting for current number of units.
- I said earlier that it's hard to make the system work properly even now. With 3 rows it would become even harder.
Adding another row would increase the complexity for sure, but I see no real added depth here, as all new mechanics work with 2 rows in a more intuitive and less finicky way. It may increase the difficulty of the game, but not the kind of difficulty I'd aim for. Also it would make it harder to implement and balance right.
Last edited:
More: Golden Froth is totally broken. 9 provisions, you can run two of them, and it gives you consistently 16-18 points if you run a swarm deck. They might increase provisions to 12 and/or make it a gold card. Otherwise, it might give +1 instead of limit the amount of units to 5 or 6.
Thanks for your statement. I aprecciate your long explanation, mostly i talk to a wall here. I dont follow you though, so only one thought about the marked passages.Sure, let's give it a go.
I'm not gonna talk about current system as there's more or less an agreement in the current community that current row system is almost meaningless. Let me know, if you disagree with this. I can also share my opinion on this. Probably not in this thread though as I don't wanna sidetrack it.
So what's good in the new row-system:
Where it should be improved:
- Reach mechanic obviously makes the list. It capitalizes on row placement and gives solid basis. It's simple and elegant: you have the vulnerable, but offensive Melee row and the more protected Ranged row. Reach 1 goes melee-to-melee, Reach 2 you have to decide to protect your card or target the ones your opponent tries to protect. It's also a choice whether you only want to protect your key engines, or want to spam Ranked row denying opponents Reach 1 (and Ranged Reach 2) cards risking a big Lacerate.
- Then there are the cards that trigger only from one row. I think that's better than simple row-locking as it gives you options and while you pretty much have to place your stronger Golds on the "right" row, with bronzes you could often get by without the added benefit. I got punished a couple times when wanted to maximize effect of all my row-locked cards. Since we usually start the round with our bronzes, we have to anticipate and make these decision beforehand. If new Gwent manages to evolve into a meaningful 3-round game, then you also gonna have to plan from start which row-locked Golds you wanna play in this round and which one later - if necessary adapting on the way as round goes on into more risky plays.
- Choose row for effect cards add even more complexity to this, as it may be non-obvious which is the right row from ability aspect (although very often it is).
- There are also cards with less obvious row considerations like Magne Division which is one of the more interesting generic bronzes. It's usually your first play and you have to decide right then which row to put him on based on your and opponent's anticipated cards so that you can benefit from its ability for as long as possible (assuming he won't just get insta-killed of course
- Then we have punish cards like Lacerate what we already know from old Gwent, but with less rows to distribute units among and the added restrictions, it's not that easy to dodge these cards anymore. You no longer have to build the entire deck around movement or row-stack encouragement (e.g. weathers) to get decent value from these cards.
- Also we do not have these punish effects on dedicated hate cards only, but also on archetype cards like Deathwish Kitten (formerly Blood Moon, don't recall its proper name right now). Granted there's not many of these latter effects right now, but more on that later.
- It's also nice to see more effects that capitalize on placement than plain "damage everything on one row", like Blue Mountain Elites or that NG Soldier unit that damages by number of the units on the other row. Many cards capitalize on adjacent placement as well: trying to play around Arachas Venom seems like an interesting challenge.
So why not 3 rows?
- While as mentioned there are some punish cards, there aren't that many that gets played. Probably it's just not that easy to make randomly room for a Lacerate in most decks. I still see possibility for it to become at least a tech card.
- As mentioned before there are not too many archetype cards capitalizing on placement. We have archetype synergy cards with bland effects. And we have cards with interesting mechanics that capitalize on opponent's row placement on cards that have no synergy with anything, so don't find a place in any of the decks. The solution is obvious for me: move the interesting effect to archetype cards, redesign the other card from scratch.
- I also see that Reach cards are usually not punished for Melee row placement. I mean they can be punished indirectly if they get played into row-hate cards, but most of them you don't really want to protect to consider Ranged row placement as they only have Deploy effect. A positive example in this sense is Imlerith or Ves as you have to decide whether you want to target enemy's engines on Ranged or protect your own Order activation. A less obvious example of the mechanic utilized well is Cyclops who you also don't have to protect, but the enemy can keep weakening your viable cannon fodder cards on Melee so adds a nice possibility for counterplay.
- I don't think that any-row cards and any-row eliminations are properly priced at the moment. They should be either of higher cost or more conditional or risky plays. I see this mainly as a balance issue. I mean why play into Ranged row for protection, if it's not much harder to eliminate your unit there? Why worry about row-stacking if you can fill up your deck with enough any-row units to balance out the row-restricted ones?
- I also think it needs some more fiddling in general to find out which cards and abilities should be row-restricted (and to which row) to have impact, but not too much impact. (Right now we're more on the not enough impact side it seems.) No wonder, it's a pretty hard balancing problem.
To summarize I don't think the new row system works perfectly right now, and that's an understatement. But also think it has great potential.
- With more rows it becomes more easy to play around punish cards.
- Row-restricted abilities would also get distributed into more rows weakening the restriction.
- Choose row for effect cards would become impossible to balance in the masses. Coming up with 3 viable and sort of equal options is challenging enough. Weighing in which rows to put which effect (considering which rows other cards would get played) seems like a nightmare. Or you may make them activate an effect on multiple rows, again weakening the impact of row placement restrictions.
- It seems like an overcomplication for no good reason.
- I started my description with how 2-rows feel simple and elegant. It's also more intuitive. What would be the role of Ranged row in this system? You want your engines on Siege row, offensive cards on Melee, what to put into Ranged? "Protected but not that much protected"?
- Same with Reach. We would have Reach 1-4. What would Reach 2 do in this system? Or 3 or 4? Again it's very intuitive with 2 rows, seems overcomplicated with 3.
- Still only the same general rules would apply: put your units as backwards as possible to protect, while also avoiding excessive row-stacking and choose the row for effect intended. Choosing the right would just become a harder memory game to recall which possible enemy units have which row-restriction or exact Reach value. I see no real added depth.
- UPDATE: Less tutors mean less units on the board, 2 rows seem more fitting for current number of units.
- I said earlier that it's hard to make the system work properly even now. With 3 rows it would become even harder.
Adding another row would increase the complexity for sure, but I see no real added depth here, as all new mechanics work with 2 rows in a more intuitive and less finicky way. It may increase the difficulty of the game, but not the kind of difficulty I'd aim for. Also it would make it harder to implement and balance right.
What would be a range row (at 3 rows): A not-offensive-not defensive Card(effect), boost for example. Especialty in combination with reach, where you cant or dont want to hit from melee or siege row ranged is a middle.
Its true, it would be easier to dodge teh punishment, but only if all cards remein the same. You could pretty easy punish a heavy row-deck at CB with lacerate, so you have to make your deck more diverse and spread out. So even back then we had to adapt because of the punishing potenial of some cards.
In ptr i had the feeling, if my opponent have such a punishing card, i will be punished either way. I couldnt dodge a G-Igni, it was not possible. And thats the other side of two row: Limitation. I dont feel any meaning for row right now, it doesnt matter at all, if i HAVE to play a card at melee or range for the ability. Because to few cards have this kind of ability at all. About 40 cards have to chose from a melee-range-ability, that isnt tough-row decision at all, if you have still the free choice for 75-90% of all your cards.
1-Those surveys are good idea, but you have to give us HC card database for them to work. I can't find it anywhere and i don't remember more than 10 cards.
2-Usurper is f**king annoying! He can win or lose you the game on his own.
3-Harald+Axeman combo is back and it is even more broken than on live servers.
4-Create is garbage mechanic! It's not as bad as it was after mid-winter update, but it's still not ok.
5-I haven't tried Shupe, but i really hope he was completly reworked. I hate that card so much!
6-Audio glitch after playing Wild-hunt rider. Super loud and super annoying.
7-Skellige storm lasted for 3 turns. I'm 80% sure it's 1 more turn than it's suposed to.
8-Graphics look amazing, but right now only thing i care about is gameplay! Graphics are just bonus, not main feature.
2-Usurper is f**king annoying! He can win or lose you the game on his own.
3-Harald+Axeman combo is back and it is even more broken than on live servers.
4-Create is garbage mechanic! It's not as bad as it was after mid-winter update, but it's still not ok.
5-I haven't tried Shupe, but i really hope he was completly reworked. I hate that card so much!
6-Audio glitch after playing Wild-hunt rider. Super loud and super annoying.
7-Skellige storm lasted for 3 turns. I'm 80% sure it's 1 more turn than it's suposed to.
8-Graphics look amazing, but right now only thing i care about is gameplay! Graphics are just bonus, not main feature.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying to adjust to the Recruit Cost system, and I wonder if it's possible to streamline things by having, say, 4 or 5 number values...? Like, common bronze cards = 3; uncommon bronze = 4; common golds = 6; uncommon golds = 8. That sort of thing.
I thought the deck-building was pretty smooth in the Open Beta. With that system, it's fun choosing which 6 silvers and which 4 golds to use, and there's a nice flow to building a deck. You can cycle between the 3 categories when choosing cards, fine tuning synergies, etc.
Now, it's a bit overwhelming having so many golds. I'm actually relieved that my collection is on the console version, as I think that starting from scratch on PC will make the adjustment a whole lot easier. Again, this may just be growing pains for me!
I understand that this new system allows for better balancing of cards, which is great, and I appreciate that it requires a broader understanding of the card library. I just wonder if it will make deck-building less intuitive, and perhaps less enjoyable. Thanks for all the hard work, and best of luck.
I thought the deck-building was pretty smooth in the Open Beta. With that system, it's fun choosing which 6 silvers and which 4 golds to use, and there's a nice flow to building a deck. You can cycle between the 3 categories when choosing cards, fine tuning synergies, etc.
Now, it's a bit overwhelming having so many golds. I'm actually relieved that my collection is on the console version, as I think that starting from scratch on PC will make the adjustment a whole lot easier. Again, this may just be growing pains for me!
I understand that this new system allows for better balancing of cards, which is great, and I appreciate that it requires a broader understanding of the card library. I just wonder if it will make deck-building less intuitive, and perhaps less enjoyable. Thanks for all the hard work, and best of luck.
Last edited:
I really liked ptr way better than the actual Gwent and I also think HC was the right decision for the game, but there are somethings that still pretty bad. So, here follows the main issues I could recognize in the ptr, along with some suggestions to fix them, ******INCLUDING THE HAND LIMIT AND DRYPASS PROBLEM*******,:
*THE HAND LIMIT PROBLEM*: The hand limit needs to be gone. I know that it's there to discourage drypass and make other rounds besides R3 more important, but its doing exactly the opposite right now. Most of the time you end up with having to play 2 or 3 cards to not discard your draws on the next round, sometimes even when you opponent had already passed and thats just awful. And even worse than that, hand limit makes card advantage not a thing and thats bad because CA is one of the most "gwenty" concepts of the game ever. Being able to get back CA when you're like 2 cards down just because of how the hand limit works (doesn't need skill or anything) is not a healthy thing to the game. Now, before giving the solution to this problem I need to talk about the "tactical advantage" for a second.
*TACTICAL ADVANTAGE*: The concept for this card to fix the coinflip is really great and I think it really works, but its kind of OP in its current form and give WAY more advantage, than it should, to decks that run order based engines that needs to stay alive. So, my suggestion is to rework the tactical advantage into a immune artifact that transforms into a unit instead of boosting any unit and also reduce it's power to 4 for not making high tempo openers too abusive (I"ll get on that later).
*DRYPASS/HAND LIMIT SOLUTION*: First of all, with the hand limit already removed: makes that neither players can pass on their first turn of each round. Then, whoever player that starts R1/R2 stars the round with the reworked tactical advantage (TA), that I cited before IF they have less or equal cards as the other player in his hand. How this chage things? Well, at the start of R1 each players will have the same ammount of cards in the hand so whoever goes first will get the TA no matter what, not being able to pass on the first turn consequently (and obviously) blocks the drypass option and that is fine because the extra thempo of the TA will help the blue coin player to at least got out of R1 losing with 1 card ahead. At the start of R2 if the players that goes first (have won R1) has equal or less cards in his hand he will get the TA too like I mentioned before. And how that will work on R2? If the player that starts R2 has 1 less card in his hand that is because he won R1 with 1 card down (of course) and nothing being able to pass in the first turn of R2, because the restriction we imposed, could really hurt his R3 if he not manage to get his card back; and that is why he gets the TA: for helping him in thempo to try to get that card back. And the same goes for the player that starts R2 with even cards (managed to won R1 on even) the extra thempo of the TA will help him to try to get a card of advantage as he would normally do by just drypassing R2, but with the drypass block and the TA's extra thempo he's encouraged to play the round in order to get that CA, and the same goes for R1 dry pass and R2 drypass with a card behind that I cited before. The last possible case is that if the player who starts R2 have more cards in his hand (managed to won R1 with 1 card ahead) and in this case he doesn't need the TA to help him for thempo since he's already a card up and would probably just 2-0 the opponent with that extra thempo, and that is why the condition of having equal or less cards than your opponent in you hand to get the TA when starting a round. For R3, of course, the TA doesn't exist wich is the whole point of encouraging players to play for R1 and R2 to get any advantage on R3. Also, I can see not having the restriction of having less or equal cards in hand for the player to get the TA since this just affect the last case I mentioned above and you can make the argument tha if he managed to won R1 he deserves a chance to go 2 cards up R3 like he would normally do by drypassing.
But I know this solution can be a so much abusive, especially for high thempo openers like witchers + roach + reworked TA. But, it still possible to balance the game around that; like reworking roach to something like "on turn end if you played and/or summoned only 1 gold card this turn play this card from your deck" to espcially avoid this thempo madness with witchers.
These are my biggest concerns with what I've seen so far in HC along with some solutions that seems to work really fine for me. Apart of that, there are still has some minor issues that I'd like to point and suggest:
*MANUAL PASS ON THE LAST CARD*: In the current PTR when you played your last card you were forced to manually pass, ending the game if the opponent had already passed and that's bad because you dont get an extra turn to effects to activate -Like: Aglais, Anna Strenger and many others turn end/engine cards- and whoever pass first still gets this "extra turn". Fixing this is easy: just change the manual pass on the last card to tha click pass that you can do after playing a card normally, this way the coin will flip and you will have this "extra turn" to effects and when the coin flips back to you make sure order effects cannot be activated, because that would be busted, and now you manually pass (or even auto pass since you can't do anymore on the board at this point).
*MULLIGANS, LEADERS AND DRAWS*: At this point I think the extra mulligan on the blue coin is also unnecessary, I would rather have plus 1 mulligan in each leader, except for:
-Henselt: if he's really going to all copies of a unit instead of a copy, less muligans should be a nice way to balance it, maybe even being the only leader to have only 1.
-Emhyr: In his case plus 2 would be the ideal since the current 2 mulligans he has seems pretty weak with its ability.
And for the draws between rounds I would rather having 3 on R2 and 2 on R3 since the extra mulligan on every leader would give access to another card on your deck anyways and plus that makes short rounds win conditions more of a thing.
*VISUALS*: Almost everything looks good for me and I know there's a lot of thing that still work in progress, but for what I've seen so far I think a slightly brigther board would be really nice.
That's all folks! thanks for reading and for your time. If possible: MAKE THIS A TREND PLEASE, SO CDPR CAN SEE IT
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*THE HAND LIMIT PROBLEM*: The hand limit needs to be gone. I know that it's there to discourage drypass and make other rounds besides R3 more important, but its doing exactly the opposite right now. Most of the time you end up with having to play 2 or 3 cards to not discard your draws on the next round, sometimes even when you opponent had already passed and thats just awful. And even worse than that, hand limit makes card advantage not a thing and thats bad because CA is one of the most "gwenty" concepts of the game ever. Being able to get back CA when you're like 2 cards down just because of how the hand limit works (doesn't need skill or anything) is not a healthy thing to the game. Now, before giving the solution to this problem I need to talk about the "tactical advantage" for a second.
*TACTICAL ADVANTAGE*: The concept for this card to fix the coinflip is really great and I think it really works, but its kind of OP in its current form and give WAY more advantage, than it should, to decks that run order based engines that needs to stay alive. So, my suggestion is to rework the tactical advantage into a immune artifact that transforms into a unit instead of boosting any unit and also reduce it's power to 4 for not making high tempo openers too abusive (I"ll get on that later).
*DRYPASS/HAND LIMIT SOLUTION*: First of all, with the hand limit already removed: makes that neither players can pass on their first turn of each round. Then, whoever player that starts R1/R2 stars the round with the reworked tactical advantage (TA), that I cited before IF they have less or equal cards as the other player in his hand. How this chage things? Well, at the start of R1 each players will have the same ammount of cards in the hand so whoever goes first will get the TA no matter what, not being able to pass on the first turn consequently (and obviously) blocks the drypass option and that is fine because the extra thempo of the TA will help the blue coin player to at least got out of R1 losing with 1 card ahead. At the start of R2 if the players that goes first (have won R1) has equal or less cards in his hand he will get the TA too like I mentioned before. And how that will work on R2? If the player that starts R2 has 1 less card in his hand that is because he won R1 with 1 card down (of course) and nothing being able to pass in the first turn of R2, because the restriction we imposed, could really hurt his R3 if he not manage to get his card back; and that is why he gets the TA: for helping him in thempo to try to get that card back. And the same goes for the player that starts R2 with even cards (managed to won R1 on even) the extra thempo of the TA will help him to try to get a card of advantage as he would normally do by just drypassing R2, but with the drypass block and the TA's extra thempo he's encouraged to play the round in order to get that CA, and the same goes for R1 dry pass and R2 drypass with a card behind that I cited before. The last possible case is that if the player who starts R2 have more cards in his hand (managed to won R1 with 1 card ahead) and in this case he doesn't need the TA to help him for thempo since he's already a card up and would probably just 2-0 the opponent with that extra thempo, and that is why the condition of having equal or less cards than your opponent in you hand to get the TA when starting a round. For R3, of course, the TA doesn't exist wich is the whole point of encouraging players to play for R1 and R2 to get any advantage on R3. Also, I can see not having the restriction of having less or equal cards in hand for the player to get the TA since this just affect the last case I mentioned above and you can make the argument tha if he managed to won R1 he deserves a chance to go 2 cards up R3 like he would normally do by drypassing.
But I know this solution can be a so much abusive, especially for high thempo openers like witchers + roach + reworked TA. But, it still possible to balance the game around that; like reworking roach to something like "on turn end if you played and/or summoned only 1 gold card this turn play this card from your deck" to espcially avoid this thempo madness with witchers.
These are my biggest concerns with what I've seen so far in HC along with some solutions that seems to work really fine for me. Apart of that, there are still has some minor issues that I'd like to point and suggest:
*MANUAL PASS ON THE LAST CARD*: In the current PTR when you played your last card you were forced to manually pass, ending the game if the opponent had already passed and that's bad because you dont get an extra turn to effects to activate -Like: Aglais, Anna Strenger and many others turn end/engine cards- and whoever pass first still gets this "extra turn". Fixing this is easy: just change the manual pass on the last card to tha click pass that you can do after playing a card normally, this way the coin will flip and you will have this "extra turn" to effects and when the coin flips back to you make sure order effects cannot be activated, because that would be busted, and now you manually pass (or even auto pass since you can't do anymore on the board at this point).
*MULLIGANS, LEADERS AND DRAWS*: At this point I think the extra mulligan on the blue coin is also unnecessary, I would rather have plus 1 mulligan in each leader, except for:
-Henselt: if he's really going to all copies of a unit instead of a copy, less muligans should be a nice way to balance it, maybe even being the only leader to have only 1.
-Emhyr: In his case plus 2 would be the ideal since the current 2 mulligans he has seems pretty weak with its ability.
And for the draws between rounds I would rather having 3 on R2 and 2 on R3 since the extra mulligan on every leader would give access to another card on your deck anyways and plus that makes short rounds win conditions more of a thing.
*VISUALS*: Almost everything looks good for me and I know there's a lot of thing that still work in progress, but for what I've seen so far I think a slightly brigther board would be really nice.
That's all folks! thanks for reading and for your time. If possible: MAKE THIS A TREND PLEASE, SO CDPR CAN SEE IT
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
