Suggestion About Deck Size and Maximum # of Silver/Gold Cards

[4RM3D]

Suggestion About Deck Size and Maximum # of Silver/Gold Cards

First of all, what's the point of having a deck with 40 cards? You would always want as few cards as possible to have a greater chance of getting the cards you'll need. The exception might be Foltest Swarm, but that deck is highly inconsistent precisely because of the large card count. So, why go 40 except for the giggles?

My suggestion is to increase the maximum number of silver and gold cards relative to the deck size. Something like:

- At 30 cards you can use an additional silver card (7 total).
- At 35 cards you can use an additional gold card (5 total).
- At 40 cards you can use an additional silver card (8 total) and gold card (6 total).

These values might need to be tweaked.

Thoughts?

 

[shdcs1975]

What should that do? Good deckbuilder used 25 cards, that's increase the chance to draw the gold cards. And casual player used this feature to build terrible bad deck and wonder why they loose.
By 40 Cards you have 1 Gold and 2 Silver more. But on the other hand you have 12 Bronze more. So your chance to draw a Gold or Silver card is decreased.

 

[SarahGabriella]

I think the deck size is too low currently anyways. Everyone has their deck in their hand with spies and other cards that let them pull stuff from the deck. 25 is too low. Increase the base to 40 and the max to 50 and adjust the gold and silver ratio accordingly.

 

[stridecolossus]

I quite like this idea - you can either play the minimum deck size for the reasons most people have 25 card decks atm, or you increase the number of cards giving you more options but a more diluted deck, basically a trade-off and hence more diversity which can only be good. As things stand pretty much EVERY deck is 25 because there is simply no reason to choose more, or at least I haven't seen anyone coming up with a compelling reason to select more than ~25.

That said I also agree that the 25 card minimum is a little draconian and expect it will feel even more so when we get more cards in upcoming patches and releases.

 

[daiver19]

I think that would be cool and encourage experimenting with larger decks. There are already decks which can draw almost all the cards, especially with rally. Also I would like to see deck-building relying cards in future, like e.g. 'you can include this card in your deck only if it has at least 30 cards', obviously with powerful effect. Otherwise currently it usually doesn't make much sense to go higher than 25.

 

[Archpriest]

I am fully in support of "30 minimum" decks. I think that tiny decks remove creativity and situational awereness from the game. How many times did you see the opponent forfeit if his strategy fails as soon as the 2nd or even 1st round. I see this often enough to make my conclusions.

 

[shdcs1975]

I think the deck size is too low currently anyways. Everyone has their deck in their hand with spies and other cards that let them pull stuff from the deck. 25 is too low. Increase the base to 40 and the max to 50 and adjust the gold and silver ratio accordingly.

Increase the decksize without a turn based card draw would increase the RNG so much that this game would loose the strategic aspect.

 

[SarahGabriella]

I am fully in support of "30 minimum" decks. I think that tiny decks remove creativity and situational awereness from the game. How many times did you see the opponent forfeit if his strategy fails as soon as the 2nd or even 1st round. I see this often enough to make my conclusions.

Exactly. People play the latest "meta" deck that is OP enough to get a few wins but as soon as someone counters their 1 main strategy they forfeit. Not how i want to play a game. 30 may be too low, 35, add 10 to what we got. Upper limit set to 45 and we are good i think. At least they should patch it in and see how it goes.
Thats what this beta is for, CDPR testing stuff like this. I hope they do this.
It also opens up the use of more than 1 strategy for a deck.

 

[4RM3D]

If the minimum deck size is increased, then the maximum number of silver/gold cards allowed should be increased also.

 

[Archpriest]

Exactly. People play the latest "meta" deck that is OP enough to get a few wins but as soon as someone counters their 1 main strategy they forfeit. Not how i want to play a game. 30 may be too low, 35, add 10 to what we got. Upper limit set to 45 and we are good i think. At least they should patch it in and see how it goes.
Thats what this beta is for, CDPR testing stuff like this. I hope they do this.
It also opens up the use of more than 1 strategy for a deck.

Glad that I'm not alone thinking this way. What's the point in introducing 120 cards a year when only few of them are played? Devs, pay attention please!!!

 

[devivre]

I am fully in support of "30 minimum" decks. I think that tiny decks remove creativity and situational awereness from the game. How many times did you see the opponent forfeit if his strategy fails as soon as the 2nd or even 1st round. I see this often enough to make my conclusions.

Yeah... I kinda agree also because I'd love to use certain cards as well but then again with a 30 cards Monster deck you're often screwed at this point (since there aren't many ways to redraw cards here...). But a 30 cards limit will probably require more chances to redraw cards (for example being able to redraw 2 cards in round 2 and 1 card in round 3).

 

[SarahGabriella]

Glad that I'm not alone thinking this way. What's the point in introducing 120 cards a year when only few of them are played? Devs, pay attention please!!!

We get the people pushing back on this of course, those will be the top players with their single strategy approach who use the latest OP combos.
But we need to not just listen to the top players, but all players should be heard. And the first thing i noticed when playing the game was how low the number of cards in the deck can be and how many cards we draw.

 

[Isi23_23]

I hope that you all understand that bigger decks = more randomness and more expensive decks. Also you will definitely not prevent early concession, quite opposite, because you get bad hands more often, people will concede more often. Personally I really like 25 card limit, because with card drawing you are usually able to draw around 80% of your deck, which makes Gwent much less random than most CCG I played.

 

[SarahGabriella]

I hope that you all understand that bigger decks = more randomness and more expensive decks. Also you will definitely not prevent early concession, quite opposite, because you get bad hands more often, people will concede more often. Personally I really like 25 card limit, because with card drawing you are usually able to draw around 80% of your deck, which makes Gwent much less random than most CCG I played.

Randomness cant be avoided in a card game, thats almost the point of the game. Make a strategy, maybe even more than 1, work with that. Have a back up plan if all else fails.
You just described the perfect problem, 80% of the deck can be drawn, thats a sad statistic. Who wants to play a game where its about getting your entire deck out?
This game is already unique in that sense that we dont have Life Points, i think more cards in the deck would give this game more longevity and more balance between top players and lower tier ones.

 

[SarahGabriella]

If the minimum deck size is increased, then the maximum number of silver/gold cards allowed should be increased also.

Of course, it has to be scaled up. But it would be great, im sure. CDPR should just try it for the next patch and see what happens. On release they shouldnt experiment as much anymore, but in this beta, i say go for it, nothing can go wrong, anything is reversible after testing it and if it failed.

 

[Isi23_23]

Randomness cant be avoided in a card game, thats almost the point of the game. Make a strategy, maybe even more than 1, work with that. Have a back up plan if all else fails.
You just described the perfect problem, 80% of the deck can be drawn, thats a sad statistic. Who wants to play a game where its about getting your entire deck out?
This game is already unique in that sense that we dont have Life Points, i think more cards in the deck would give this game more longevity and more balance between top players and lower tier ones.

Of course randomness can't be avoided in card game, but you have card games that are nearly 100% about luck and than there are games where luck is smaller factor and skill is bigger. I think Gwent is one of them and mostly because it small card limit and ability to go trough nearly all your deck. I have absolutely no problem with game, where you can go trough most of your deck most of time. There will be still more than enough randomness in which order you draw a cards.

I could only see problem with this from designer perspective, because this put much more stress to balancing cards. Also without lot of new cards, game could eventually become boring. But this problem is in all CCG, no matter deck size and one of best solution for this is in my opinion limited / draft format.

 

[KasumiGoto]

I'm fine with 25 cards and I wouldn't like it to change.

 

[Wishaled]

Same here. I've played online TCG for years, and so far, Gwent is amongst my personnal top. I won't lie, I've built my deck so I can draw 100% of it in one game.
Too many times, I've lost because I didn't draw the one card I needed. When you don't draw the cards you need, you can say your lost is due to bad RNG.
When you draw almost all your deck every game, losing is due to your deck, or the way you played. It's not good enough. And I like it. I love losing because of myself, not because of some random unluck I've been victim of.
25 cards in a game allows for some real strategy to take place in deck-building. You say it does not allow for most of the cards to be seen. I do not agree.
With such a low card limit, you can build almost viable strategies with any card. And for the cards it's not possible to, I do not think it is because of the deck size, but because of the card itself.
I'm seeing a huge diversity of decks while playing ladder, and I love it. And each of them is built around an idea, which works.
Forcing people to put more cards in their deck will result in decks working less of the time.

 

[Archpriest]

Same here. I've played online TCG for years, and so far, Gwent is amongst my personnal top. I won't lie, I've built my deck so I can draw 100% of it in one game.
Too many times, I've lost because I didn't draw the one card I needed. When you don't draw the cards you need, you can say your lost is due to bad RNG.

Actually... no. You Just described the "lack of skill" play. It's like folding in poker if you don't get pocket aces every time.
Or drawing to the gutshot straight because you need that one card. And if you don't get it, you lose. So, you remove all other cards from the deck to make sure does come out.
Don't take it personally, not my intent at all.
When you draw almost all your deck every game, losing is due to your deck. It's not good enough. And I like it. I love losing because of myself, not because of some random unluck I've been victim of.
25 cards in a game allows for some real strategy to take place in deck-building. You say it does not allow for most of the cards to be seen. I do not agree.

With such a low card limit, you can build almost viable strategies with any card.

You contradict yourself. Not with ANY card but with specific card. Again, I've seen enough times when this type of approach fails, the opponent insta-forfeits. He has nothing else.

Forcing people to put more cards in their deck will result in decks working less of the time.

Forcing people to put more cards in their deck will result in a more diverse and interesting gameplay - because people will have to learn to think and improvise.

Oh, and by the way, it will greatly reduce the raging of the losing side. As a bonus.

 

[mkey82]

More cards means less consistency and a serious game rebalance would have to follow. Without making substantial alterations it would means less strategy and more rng. Things change dramatically either way.

I support this idea only in form of various game modes, where people could create challenges for others, engaging them in different scenarios. Like a 50 card deck minimum, or one of each, mixed factions, commons only etc. In these cases it could work out as is and it would provide variety. The problem with this scenario would be you'd have to have multiple ques so matchmaking would be made more difficult. Or alternatively they could introduce that as an option for challenging friends etc. so standard multiplayer should be less affected.