What changes do we want to see in the next patch?

[MeCosmos]

The question is, why does gerni have only 11 provisions? Compare her to fran who has 15. To me it feels like it should be the other way around.

Monsters are the weakest faction overall bcs, most of their leaders are meh and archetypes are kinda weak. There is so much big unit removal going around, your thrive unit just die to assasinations bombs and stuff like that and you cant play more than one at a time. Why is harmony so good? Bcs you can play 4 harmony units in one turn so some of them stick, thrive doesnt. And deathwish has its problems too, its very draw dependent, important cards like geels never survive and it suffers from big removal too. Swarm decks too, you get big units in the end which get killed... Only sort of playable mosters are vampires.

And i dont really like some changes made to the leaders which require them to use their abillitie only on faction cards. Calanthe is fine. But foltest and fran? Why? Both those leaders play the same cards over and over again bcs they dont have many options, neutral cards are locked out for them.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Honestly if I get a card in the first round that I absolutely want to have later in the game I just don't mulligan it. If I have to pass early because of that decision then I will do that. The blacklisting issue really doesn't bother me that much. The game is already extremely consistent. Just cram in a bunch of thinning and you can play basically your entire deck.

But doesent it bother you at all, that in some instances, say in a short round 3, you either draw all your remaining gold cards or only bronzes. That's just feels bad, regarding the later.
All net-decks out there run some sort of thinning options, either portal or royal decree, or circle. Or any combination in between, depending on shift in artifact removal. That's just proves how necesarry consistency is in this game. This high amount of provision cost could potentially be allocated to run some weird combos or by anyway differentiate your deck from the rest.

If you keep a card you want saved for later, lets say several cards, and talk about general feelings. Does it feel good to keep the combo cards, pass 7 cards up, and then getting bled by opponnent that anticipates some weird play from your side? I'm sure it will feel much better, if you mulligan those cards for later while having a decent chance of redrawing them when needed.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

But doesent it bother you at all, that in some instances, say in a short round 3, you either draw all your remaining gold cards or only bronzes. That's just feels bad, regarding the later.
All net-decks out there run some sort of thinning options, either portal or royal decree, or circle. Or any combination in between, depending on shift in artifact removal. That's just proves how necesarry consistency is in this game. This high amount of provision cost could potentially be allocated to run some weird combos or by anyway differentiate your deck from the rest.

If you keep a card you want saved for later, lets say several cards, and talk about general feelings. Does it feel good to keep the combo cards, pass 7 cards up, and then getting bled by opponnent that anticipates some weird play from your side? I'm sure it will feel much better, if you mulligan those cards for later while having a decent chance of redrawing them when needed.

In regards to drawing bronzes meh it's part of the game. There has to be some draw RNG or what's the point in drawing cards at all?

I don't have a problem with choosing to keep cards that I absolutely don't want to risk losing. That's my choice to make. If I put them back in the deck then I have no reason to complain that I don't draw them again later.

 

[viatsiuta]

Please update "Regis" and "Hemdall" cards to ignore the armor or they will become unplayable
Also, it will be a pity if AOE damage like dragons dream will not work on all units if there is a defender in the raw
thanks in advance

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

In regards to drawing bronzes meh it's part of the game. There has to be some draw RNG or what's the point in drawing cards at all?

I don't have a problem with choosing to keep cards that I absolutely don't want to risk losing. That's my choice to make. If I put them back in the deck then I have no reason to complain that I don't draw them again later.

Yes, but talking about a competitive card game, it just doesent feel right, as you are supposed to have influence of your draws. Which even in a very well thinned deck, your chance of drawing the card you need is 1/6 (depending on number of remaining cards in your deck).

Thinning in itself also seems to restrict deck building, atleast when it come to viable and competitive decks. The difference is that in a all-in deck with no tutors or thinning, you win with huge point swings or loose terribly, by not drawing your combo. And it appears that the meta has shifted towards decks that include some degree of thinning and control of your draws. By reintroducing blacklisting, even when your are not running any tutors or thinning, and with a remaining deck-size of 12 or something, your chances of drawing into a combo is a bit better than what it is now, while playing with tutors pretty much may guarantee that you end up playing the combo each game, which is why you include it in the first place in your deck. Its not fun when you end up not drawing the cards you build your deck around, and pretty much discourages innovation in deck-building in this game.

Tutors seem to be mandatory in each and every deck, as it stands now. It's one of the consequences of not having blacklisting , and it just seems wrong.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Yes, but talking about a competitive card game, it just doesent feel right, as you are supposed to have influence of your draws. Which even in a very well thinned deck, your chance of drawing the card you need is 1/6 (depending on number of remaining cards in your deck).

Thinning in itself also seems to restrict deck building, atleast when it come to viable and competitive decks. The difference is that in a all-in deck with no tutors or thinning, you win with huge point swings or loose terribly, by not drawing your combo. And it appears that the meta has shifted towards decks that include some degree of thinning and control of your draws. By reintroducing blacklisting, even when your are not running any tutors or thinning, and with a remaining deck-size of 12 or something, your chances of drawing into a combo is a bit better than what it is now, while playing with tutors pretty much may guarantee that you end up playing the combo each game, which is why you include it in the first place in your deck. Its not fun when you end up not drawing the cards you build your deck around, and pretty much discourages innovation in deck-building in this game.

Tutors seem to be mandatory in each and every deck, as it stands now. It's one of the consequences of not having blacklisting , and it just seems wrong.

I don't know if I agree that tutors are mandatory. It depends on the deck. The one I took to pro rank this season only had two tutors in it and if one of them gets nerfed I might end up only using one tutor in that deck next season.

Tutors are important if you want to make sure you get certain cards out on a consistent basis. That really has nothing to do with blacklisting.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

I don't know if I agree that tutors are mandatory. It depends on the deck. The one I took to pro rank this season only had two tutors in it and if one of them gets nerfed I might end up only using one tutor in that deck next season.

Tutors are important if you want to make sure you get certain cards out on a consistent basis. That really has nothing to do with blacklisting.

The overreliance on tutors in each and every competitive deck restrict your choices in deckbuilding, as the total provision cost could potentially be allocated to other cards (10-22 provisions) in presence of blacklisting.
Additionally the Discard-SK could be playable again, with additional buffs, as the thinning wont be needed in every SK deck.

 

[InkognitoXI]

The overreliance on tutors in each and every competitive deck restrict your choices in deckbuilding, as the total provision cost could potentially be allocated to other cards (10-22 provisions) in presence of blacklisting.
Additionally the Discard-SK could be playable again, with additional buffs, as the thinning wont be needed in every SK deck.

It is good though if one can add additional bodies to other cards, which is (one of the reasons) why Dandelion is still played, despite his ludicrous provision cost.

 

[dunadan5]

This is perhaps a pet peeve of mine, but I would really like to see the Predatory Dive card (Monsters, Special, Each player destroys their weakest unit) actually require the casting player to have a unit card to sacrifice, as a casting condition.
It's not a massive problem, of course. But any time i see it used as a no-cost stalling play i can't help thinking that that's seems like an overlooked mistake, especially due to the actual wording of the card effect.

 

[GrimOrion]

Something simple. Make players prestige levels a little obvious. Kind of hard to tell them apart. Different colors or something.

 

[V_exe_D]

Seize ability in general. Or rework Ardal & SY Philippa at least!

 

[thetruerenter]

How about fixing Zoltan:Scoundrel as it was before with removing the doom tag of the duda spellcards.

 

[nedders]

Ensure any "seize" card also comes with "lock" and "purify", so you can seize a unit but it doesn't keep armor, shield or its' ability. That's an absolute MUST for me.

Pred dive should act like Black Blood; by all means kill the oppos unit, but it stays on the board until the user plays a card, which it then destroys.

 

[Amaroc]

Nerf Enslave and Damian Combo. It's usually 20 points or more, because paired with a defender, you can't kill Damian directly.

 

[Rizlazz420]

Make defenders lockable or bring better purify cards for all factions.

 

[Gen_Liu]

Neutral:
Portal - 14p - 4p cards got stronger, you usually get between 10-14 points, and it thins by 2
Alzur's Thunder - back to 6p, for 5p it's 2p cheaper than best locking cards, and because most cards that you want to lock have 5str i think this bronze card is too strong

ST:
Francesca - back to 13p, maybe even less, her power gives you between 10 all the way up to 20+ points
Call of the forest - 12p, being restricted to ST cards doesn't really matter, if you want to tutor some neutrals you are more than welcome to play royal decree, this card is simply stronger, you get more points with a single play, there are cards that get value from being buffed, you can play buffed engines
Dryad ranger - remove harmony, make them 4str and dealing 1dmg, this way their ceiling is a bit lower, i don't like poison at all, it's super oppressive against tall decks in kind of the same way bounty was before (cheap cards having huge potential), and this is the main reason for tall monsters being unplayable, fortunately Purify is more of a thing now - maybe it's better to make both 5p poison cards stronger but more expensive
Weeping Willow - 8p, it's way too easy to exceed provisions cost

SK:
Sigrdrifa's right - 11p, you are almost always getting 12str or Olaf, with floor being 8 str
Hjalmar - 11p, best removal in the game, makes other 10p removals look silly

NR:
Calanthe - 14p, and force a player to play the card he is drawing
Keira - 12p, 7str, i don't like the fact that all NR golds are relatively cheap right now, so they can just play all of them no matter what deck they are running, this also makes her weaker to cards like igni, scorch, treason etc, and at the same time a bit stronger in a short round

NG:
Ardal - 15p
Yennefer's invocation - 10p
Tourney Joust - 5p, it's still a better version of neutral card
Emissary - 4p
Dutchess's informant - 4p
Mangonel - 4str, damage by 2, for adjacent spies increase by 1

MO:
Wild hunt warrior - 5str, dmg enemy by 1, repeat for every allied WH unit, each attack has to have different target
Griffin - 6p, stayed the same while all other bronzes got better
Ice giant - 6p, stayed the same while all other bronzes got better
Ghoul - 7p, because two of the above are better
Jotunn - 8p, move 3 enemy units to the other row and damage them by 1

I know these are mostly nerfs, but it's way easier to nerf a few cards that are clearly a problem, than to buff all the cards that are currently too weak.
Is the new expansion also dropping next month?

Agree with some things you mentioned, disagree with others.

I agree about Call of the forest but not for increasing its provision cost, simply bring it to its previous version (return a card from board play a card with the same tag and boost it by two). As it is, the card is just too strong and kinda remove the tactical aspect it had. I'll never understand why CDPR changed it, one of their worst decision imo.
Btw, the same stands for Brokilon's water. The card used to be tricky to play and offered a really cool combo with Faune. Now it's just too easy to use, really removes what made this card fun to play imo.

I strongly disagree with Alzur's thunder though, why nerfing this card? In fact I was thinking the opposite, with all the power creep the game goes through they could easily buff it and increase the damage to 6. At 5 it just removes too little things. 5 damage is all that card does, it's really not exciting in its current state.

The same stands for Dryad ranger, why changing this card, it's perfectly fine.
Poison isn't as much as a problem as you think. First it's slow, meaning you have time to react. Second, it's a machanic that can very easily be played around. Just be careful how you spend large units and play some purify effects.
And it's not at all the reason why Monster big boyz is not played anymore, the reason is because CDPR nerfed a lot of their cards and they're now really, really bad (Look at old speartip, 12str for 14pro...Who plays that?).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining (I always found that archetype being too "point spammy" and not really my taste of tea but there we go, the archetype isn't played anymore because it performed poorly, with or without poison).

Yennifer invication, Duchess' informant, tourney joust...Why? Those cards are fine, there is no reason to change them.
The problem is Ardal/Enslave, absolutely agree with you about that one, even though, I would be less subtle personaly and change it completely but that's just my personal opinion.

Agreed with Mangonel and Wild hunt warrior, in fact I think CDPR should bring spy and Frost wild hunt back to the game and make a whole lot of new cards to support them (For example, Eredin's effect should be reworked and do something in relation with Wild hunt, wild hunt units should be reworked so they synergies with Frost and each other, Frost and all weathers, for that matter, should be reworked to do something more impactful, like reducing the maximum value of each unit on the row by one (similar to what it primarily was when it was introduced but reduce BY one instead of TO one).

 

[MysticJoey]

Endrega larva - 6p
Weather ignoring armor
Leaders ignoring armor (not sure about this one, probably fine, just work on their provisions)
Savolla - 11p
Redanian archer - 6p
Delirium - add alchemy tag

 

[Evangium]

Rework the entire assimilate archetype. Compared to other faction's engines, it's far too good. In the unit package, far too many of them do the same thing in terms of boosting. Then, to make matters worse, their purifier units are also assimilate engines. Compounding this further is assimilate's synergy with create and seize cards. Since most of the NG specials that do this are tactic cards, again, their engines benefit more than those of other factions as well as providing excellent value if their deck is equipped with the Enslave ability. I found it very telling playing seasonal, that I could dismantle most other engine decks by virtue of being able to deny them the key cards required, yet assimilate continued to ramp even with half its hand on my side of the board and their leader ability locked out. This is not a state we want engine decks to get to since Gwent simply doesn't have the ability to provide heavy control decks due to the requirement to run more units than non-unit cards and a lack of bodies that possess control/removal (again, not something we would want Gwent to veer to far with).

In individual cards, Portal needs a rework. Currently it is exclusively used in NG, SY and ST to put 2 engines on the board. This has the effect of locking many 4 provision cost units from seeing play. Changing Portal's provision cost isn't going to do much to reduce its impact on the 4 cost pool.

Damian La Tour has become even more a card with no drawbacks since the introduction of defenders. It might be time for CDPR to look at imposing row locked abilities to either Damien or defenders. Damien could be locked to the ranged row, while NG defenders could get the melee row. Given that many of NG's bronze cards have melee activated abilities, it would make sense to lock their efenders to this row.

Arrtorius Vigo. I wouldn't mind him being limited to what he can create. Given he is an assimilate engine, creating disloyal units that clone other units and provide him with an additional tick on top of the one he gets when the created unit is played is slightly broken. Perhaps, in keeping with the Blood and Wine quest, he could spawn a pixie on the same row as him. Make it a defender, similar to the scarabs Azar Javed spawns, but 1 /1 armor and power and deals 1 damage to a random eneny on death.

Phoenix. Gwent's copy of MTG's Rekindling Phoenix. Well Rekindling Phoenix has rotated out of standard now. Even before then, when it was being a PITA, MTG has plenty of cards to answer it (having them in hand was a seperate issue). Gwent has very few answers, and of those that can banish it, like Deithwen Arbalest, False Ciri and Bomb Heaver, the condition is extremely narrow. At the very least, make lock persistent in the graveyard. This provides options for both the player facing the Phoenix to avoid seeing 4 points of carryover in turn 2 and 3, and the choice to tech counters for players choosing to run it.

 

[Anciluart]

I agree about Call of the forest but not for increasing its provision cost, simply bring it to its previous version (return a card from board play a card with the same tag and boost it by two). As it is, the card is just too strong and kinda remove the tactical aspect it had. I'll never understand why CDPR changed it.

Because before you could use it in neutral units like Geralt to bring another witcher, or Roach to bring Nivellen.
Also was very usefull vs some combos (sending Sabrina-Cantarella to your deck to get Hawker Smugglers).

You could also send a weakened unit to the deck and when using the echo you would bring it back (like sending Milaen that was damaged up to 1 and then playing it again or leaving it for the next round.)
Damaged Aelirenn to the deck, she will return at full points.

All these interactions made the card an interesting choice, but interesting does not go with the new game philosophy where everything is inside a box.

There was no need to change Franchesca, or Foltest, even Emyr could have been solved in another way.

 

[Celadyl]

maybe I'm alone with that opinion but I find sly seductress to be very broken, especially with portal. round 3 portal into 2 seductressess is (I think up to) 28 points when untouched. just way too insane, has zero setup and the unit gets tall so quickly that it is almost impossible to remove without a card that costs something around 10 provisions. it should start with 2 strength at max and be vulnerable when played. just had an opponent playing portal into double seductress, then the guy who creates another seductress. it practially makes every play I make 3 points less.

same goes for svalblod priest imo, it instantly goes to 5 and is out of killing range for the vast majority of removal cards. with the new armored drakkar it creates insane and almost unstoppable engines.

other than that I agree with everyone that said seizing and damien need a nerf/change.
for me personally, these changes would already make the game a lot better.

edit: maybe all units that are good in portal (and fledgelings) should be 3 strength max, that way manticore venom would be a clear counter to portal?