Jobs Support Register

So what was the point of removing silver cads?

+

G3nome

User
#1
I see the silver cards are now reworked as cheaper gold cards but what was the point of removing them? ex-silver witchers were fine as silvers but now that they are gold and are allowed to pull roach now they need balance when in the old Gwent they were fine, same Chironex and Enraged Ifrit (both have nearly the same effect, same provisions but one cost 200 scraps and the other 800)

so from a gameplay standpoint what was the point of removing silvers?
 

4RM3D

Moderator
#2
so from a gameplay standpoint what was the point of removing silvers?
So, from a gameplay standpoint, what is the point of including silver cards, now?

In the old Gwent, there was a 6 card limit for silvers. Then it made sense to have a different tier. Now, it no longer matters. Gold cards are more expensive and they are unique, while bronze cards are cheaper and they are allowed to have a duplicate.
 
#3
The point was to treat golds and silvers as equivalent for the purpose of deck building, providing more flexibility in constructed decks. one color, one rule, open options.

That said it IS a PITA to track cost and filter when there is no ability to do so within the UI.
 

Archan6el

User
#4
I have the same question as G3nome.

The fact that there is no longer a card limit for silvers does not present a need for their color to change to gold. They are epic cards, with (generally) less of an impact when played and are therefore silver. Changing their color is the opposite of equal treatment!

Some arguments to bring back silver linings:

- Legendary cards should be impressive; wow, a legendary is being played! Gold linings reserved for legendaries helps with this, a tiny gold triangle much less so.

- The collections look much cooler with gold-, silver- and bronze-lined cards to distinguish legendary, epic, rare and common. I would even propose a different color for rares and commons as well (rare = bronze, orange color, common = wood or something, dark brown color). This gives the cards more visual impact when played.

- Last but not least, having silver cards would create possibilities for additional depth, flexibility or restrictions, thereby allowing for better tweaking and balancing of cards and mechanics. For example, cards only interacting with or spawning cards of specific color(s). Clear linings to indicate color would be essential then.

I see many silver linings! :)
 
#5
I have the same question as G3nome.

The fact that there is no longer a card limit for silvers does not present a need for their color to change to gold. They are epic cards, with (generally) less of an impact when played and are therefore silver. Changing their color is the opposite of equal treatment!

Some arguments to bring back silver linings:

- Legendary cards should be impressive; wow, a legendary is being played! Gold linings reserved for legendaries helps with this, a tiny gold triangle much less so.

- The collections look much cooler with gold-, silver- and bronze-lined cards to distinguish legendary, epic, rare and common. I would even propose a different color for rares and commons as well (rare = bronze, orange color, common = wood or something, dark brown color). This gives the cards more visual impact when played.

- Last but not least, having silver cards would create possibilities for additional depth, flexibility or restrictions, thereby allowing for better tweaking and balancing of cards and mechanics. For example, cards only interacting with or spawning cards of specific color(s). Clear linings to indicate color would be essential then.

I see many silver linings! :)
Taking away silvers has made golds feel weak. There should be some impact to playing them. Now it's not even exciting getting one in a keg. Combine this with the tiny card values and it just feels like I'm throwing cards in the mud. All the impact and weight is gone. A gold used to be something to fear.
 

Shabman

User
#6
Taking away silvers has made golds feel weak. There should be some impact to playing them. Now it's not even exciting getting one in a keg. Combine this with the tiny card values and it just feels like I'm throwing cards in the mud. All the impact and weight is gone. A gold used to be something to fear.
It feels cheap. Everyone has like 10 golds in their deck so who cares if you play a gold now. In all fairness, there was some silvers back in the day that were even fiercer than golds, but at least there was some variety.

It was cool to try different silvers and golds in the limited spots, or even build two separate decks when you couldn't make up your mind. Now it's just cram as much golds in there as you can and put some garbage in your deck to compensate for provision cost.
 

nedders

User
#7
Games are only won by Golds. You might as well halve the number of cards, cards, dealt, etc., and only have golds. There's so little point to the rest, all bronzes seem to do is cater for CDPR's need to rig the matchmaking.

"Oh, look, handful of crappy, non-synergy bronzes, I lost".
"Oh, look, got all my golds in the final round, I win".

Might as well just sit down and roll a dice, for all the fun playing the game is.
 
#8
Games are only won by Golds. You might as well halve the number of cards, cards, dealt, etc., and only have golds. There's so little point to the rest, all bronzes seem to do is cater for CDPR's need to rig the matchmaking.
I completly disagree, because that depends mostly on deckbuilding.
While there are a lot of extremly powerfull golds, those have the downside that you have to include shitty bronze cards, which will make your whole game dependant of your golds.
Both my favourite decks run mainly on bronze cards, while the gold units are just there to support those and they work quite well, without having to care much about which cards I get in hand.
 

Archan6el

User
#9
Going back to the original question, I think we agree that there is no point in removing silvers (they are still there anyway in the form of a gold card with purple triangle) and it makes the game less diverse and clear, see the arguments above.
 

nedders

User
#10
I completly disagree, because that depends mostly on deckbuilding.
While there are a lot of extremly powerfull golds, those have the downside that you have to include shitty bronze cards, which will make your whole game dependant of your golds.
Both my favourite decks run mainly on bronze cards, while the gold units are just there to support those and they work quite well, without having to care much about which cards I get in hand.
I'm sorry, no offence, but I don't believe you. There is no way you're having decks run mainly on bronzes and doing well! There's not really enough faction identity or synergy on the bronzes to make it work properly, and as soon as you come up against a deck that just 'happens' to have a couple of golds that cancel you out entirely, you've lost. The bronzes just don't have that kind of winning synergy, too many uncontrollable factors come into play (lock, epidemic, movement). The only ones that kinda work are Monsters Deathwish, but they seem to get absolutely hammered every time NG appears. Which then becomes 90% of the time until you change decks again!!
 
#11
and it makes the game less diverse and clear,
I would say, the exact opposite is true. Removing silver cards was necessary to make the game more clear. Having two different kinds of cards would suggest, there were an actual difference, which just wouldn't be true, because there is no clear border between them anymore.

I'm sorry, no offence, but I don't believe you. There is no way you're having decks run mainly on bronzes and doing well! There's not really enough faction identity or synergy on the bronzes to make it work properly, and as soon as you come up against a deck that just 'happens' to have a couple of golds that cancel you out entirely, you've lost. The bronzes just don't have that kind of winning synergy, too many uncontrollable factors come into play (lock, epidemic, movement). The only ones that kinda work are Monsters Deathwish, but they seem to get absolutely hammered every time NG appears. Which then becomes 90% of the time until you change decks again!!
My NR charge deck is doing well enough and all the gold cards that I use are mainly there to support the deck, or as doubles for bronze, without a single one which has a direct huge impact. And the most important card in the deck is the Ban Aard Tutor, which is the finisher for the first and third round.

My other deck is a MS deck, which uses some stronger gold cards, but its core are Ice Trolls, which will boost themselves through the entire game.
 
Last edited:

G3nome

User
#12
sadly now my favorite card (vilgerfortz) feels cheap when in Gwent beta it was something scary to see as last play
 

Archan6el

User
#14
I would say, the exact opposite is true. Removing silver cards was necessary to make the game more clear. Having two different kinds of cards would suggest, there were an actual difference, which just wouldn't be true, because there is no clear border between them anymore.
There is an actual difference: they are epics and not legendaries.
For epics, why not keep the silver border instead of the current gold border with a tiny purple corner? Silver border is much more clear. Additional arguments are mentioned above.

Also, it would be nice in the deck builder if we can filter based on legendary, epic, rare and common instead of only gold and bronze.
 
#16
There is an actual difference: they are epics and not legendaries.
For epics, why not keep the silver border instead of the current gold border with a tiny purple corner? Silver border is much more clear. Additional arguments are mentioned above.

Also, it would be nice in the deck builder if we can filter based on legendary, epic, rare and common instead of only gold and bronze.
That difference isn't a difference ingame at all, only in deckbuilder. Thus it would only create confusion. Else, why not give Common and Rare bronze cards different borders, too. And what about Thronebreaker expansion cards, since those have a different prize category, too.

Filtering based on Legendary would be a good idea.
 

Archan6el

User
#17
That difference isn't a difference ingame at all, only in deckbuilder. Thus it would only create confusion. Else, why not give Common and Rare bronze cards different borders, too. And what about Thronebreaker expansion cards, since those have a different prize category, too.
That's exactly what is proposed above for common and rare. The proposal is to use border colors to show card uniqueness (legendary, epic, rare and common). Scraps needed for crafting is a different thing.
 

BoYoDes

User
#18
Can someone actually really distinguish between Bronzes and Golds today? It's such a slight difference. Remember when in W3 Gwent Golds had this sun thing around it's strength? Yes, Homecoming is more visual appealing than Gwent (apart for the atrocious 3D Leaders), but the distinguishment between Bronzes and Golds has never been so hard to do. And I guess it is especially bad with new players.

Also the annoyance of the difference between Legendary and Epic. At least before you knew you can replay a Silver (like with Decoy or Emhyr), now you can replay literally everything, aside from the cards with the Immune tag.

Ugh.
 

G3nome

User
#20
Can someone actually really distinguish between Bronzes and Golds today? It's such a slight difference. Remember when in W3 Gwent Golds had this sun thing around it's strength? Yes, Homecoming is more visual appealing than Gwent (apart for the atrocious 3D Leaders), but the distinguishment between Bronzes and Golds has never been so hard to do. And I guess it is especially bad with new players.

Also the annoyance of the difference between Legendary and Epic. At least before you knew you can replay a Silver (like with Decoy or Emhyr), now you can replay literally everything, aside from the cards with the Immune tag.

Ugh.
some bronzes are even more powerful than golds