When you can mod the game, what will you want to do?

I'm not sure who will get the ability to mod this game once CDPR passes on this ability to the community (did CDPR break the game so much that they just threw their hands in the air and said "I give up! You deal with this mess!"?) but if you got the chance to mod the game, what you want to do with?

This is just a sketch of what I would do, without having a big think about it:

* Get rid of Scenarios

* Get rid of Leader Abilities

* Get rid of units or mechanics which are out of step with the general playability of the game. E.g. scrap any mechanic which meant that I no longer had a deck to draw from because of my opponent's deck thinning mine. Or that Skellige unit which damages all units that you play by its power...and has that unit which protects it from damage. Basically get rid of cards that you know makes your match a lost cause the moment they are played.

* Since it's unlikely that those decks which give a big boost to units on their side of the board will be nerfed, I'd unnerf units like Geralt: Yrden etc, since you really NEED cards like that to have any chance of not being trounced by your opponent.

* Get rid of units with Immunity, maybe even things like Veil...unless having cards which can purify becomes worthwhile for a good, all-round deck. Maybe Veil and Immunity could be made to occur only when another unit has an order which grants this feature. Edit: actually, things like Veil and Immunity make classes of units which impose statuses on enemy units (statuses like Lock and applying Bleeding) useless. So, if you want to keep those now 'useless' units, either get rid of Veil and Immunity or alternatively, maybe make Tournament/Ranked decks only have cards from a certain point in time onwards, e.g. since Veil and Immunity are newer, you can play those in ranked matches but not units which apply Lock or Bleeding. That would be more like MTG, perhaps. In unranked or seasonal modes you could mix and match whatever cards you like. My preference is just to ditch Veil and Immunity because they don't play nice with older units.

Matchmaking and format:

* I'd like the ability to play the game as it was at a certain point in time, e.g. when there were 3 rows, which I never got to play

* Having control over who you play or what decks you play. So, if you're playing against an endless procession of the same deck in Seasonal mode, you can ban that deck.

* Having the ability to play your decks vs each other, with AI controlling one side.

What's going to happen with Pro Rank when the community takes over?
Last edited:
Get back to basics. I enjoyed playing Gwent more when I started than I do now, it was also more accessible to the new player.

So ideally I'd like a starter mode where only Base Set cards and mechanics could be used. This would remove much of what has diminished the appeal of the game and give any new player the realistic expectation that they could collect all the cards.


Forum veteran
Being able to create sequences for the artificial opponent in trainings mode.
I would prefer to see the game re-worked from scratch -- and perhaps, some day, we will see a remake of Gwent. I think the basic rules/game structure is fine. The problem is with the cards, card prices, and card abilities. I don't think these problems can be fixed by "community-based" re-balancing. (I expect to see something like provision costs being altered by play frequency.)

I think the main problem with Gwent begins with the basic power to provision curve. In general (as it should), the power of cards need to increase with their provision cost. But they should increase in power at a decreasing rate -- i.e. the difference in power between 13 and 14 provision cards should be much less than the difference in power between 4 and 5 provision cards. This is both because the game should not be totally dependent upon drawing one's highest provision card and because turns have value and playing a low provision card costs as much in turns as playing a high provision card.

Second, I think it is important that cards can deviate from the basic provision cost curve (that is the point of synergies), but ability to deviate substantially from the curve should only come with cards whose value is interactive -- I think it is fine for Schirru to play for 30 points because both players have many options to shape the board state in ways that impact Schirru's value. But it is NOT okay for a Simlas to play for the same point total because no opponent action impacts Simlas' value. This has nothing (directly) to do with "difficulty" of set-up; it has everything to do with interactivity of set-up. I am happy to see highly strategic cards (like Schirru, Villentretonmirth, plain Ciri, Artis, Wererat, Kelltullis, Draug, Igor, etc.) play for values slightly above the power curve provided such cards are well distributed between factions and archetypes.

Third, no engine should ever earn (per turn) more than about half the point value from playing the lowest provision card. Similarly, an order effect -- even a one time order effect should not exceed about half the value otherwise earned from the card. Cards with too much engine or order value basically become answer-or-lose, an interaction that is boring, routine, and binary. It should always be a conceivable strategy to ignor a card and otherwise outplay the opponent. And these OP, minimally interactive point generators then force more (and bigger) removal answers.

Fourth, removal should be slow and/or strategic. There is little possible interaction with an empty board, and the play-a-card -- remove-a-card interaction is not interesting.

Fifth, random, gambling type cards (i.e. Cantarella or Wheel of Fortune) can be fun, but should play, on average, for less than the standard power at their provision level. Moreover, no one such card should ever play for enough value to single-handedly win the game. Incidentally, Canterella (with current ability) should not be problematic, because no cards should exceed the value of other cards by such a margin that their loss (or not drawing them) costs a match.

Sixth, duplication of cards (beyond numbers typically allowed in a deck) needs to be handled much more carefully -- some cards (e.g. Snowdrop, Reaver Hunters, Tibor) gain too much value with additional copies. Similarly, plays that involve multiple cards must also be watched. Over the years, I have put together many decks with no plan or synergies other than to play as many cards as possible to fulfil quests. These decks are surprisingly competitive. Playing multiple cards a turn can be very impactful -- even when the cards don't really make sense together.
Last edited:


Forum regular
I'd get rid of Scenarios at first.
Why ?
Senarios are good it offer better mechanics to ur deck i agree some are maybe too much op especially the NG cultists senario,
The SK pirates and NR Siege too but it fine
The problem is that some are really bad, like, In Gedyneith's Shadow, i think they just need a rebalancing
I almost forgot: I would definitely change Cahir Dyffryn's ability.
To what? I was thinking that his previous ability would be a good counter to the new decks which make for high scoring fireworks. CDPR have really nerfed any cards which would counter that gameplay (Cahir, Yrden etc.).
The only thing I would do is add the ban faction/leader button.

That would be the crowbar approach, which only treats the symptoms, not the disease. NG, SK and SY need a complete overhaul in terms of balancing, but since nothing has been done by the developers to date and it is already set in stone that nothing will change, I will simply sign off as such. It would be exciting to observe how the majority of NG players no longer find any opponents and wonder why.
Top Bottom