general feedback thread

[jack1974]

The problem with the regular (random) draw, is that it makes balancing a bit impossible. The same battle can be ultra easy if you're lucky or ultra hard.
Now for someone who plays card games, it's normal (we all know this) but for newcomers it can lead to frustration (99% of the complaints for this game gameplay is about the luck factor).
I believe it's possible though, maybe simply you decide your deck, and then you can choose the cards to summon, but picking them from your deck. So you can't summon the same card more than its rarity for example. And there would still be some resource mechanics so you can't play the strongest card on first turn.
I'll make my usual 125093421 private tests before releasing the game of course

[Franka]

I am of course interested to see what you come up with, I just have my doubts that it'll lead to a fun card game.

[jack1974]

Luckily with a card game it's much faster to reiterate and find quicker if the gameplay is fun or not (something not so simple with a RPG)

[ElfenLied]

I'm not much of a fan of removing luck/draw. That simply makes it a puzzle game.

Yes I think you are right. In that case perhaps the right balance could be obtained by doing only the initial draw rather than drawing some cards every turn. In that case there is still the luck/randomness factor but at the same time by having at his disposal all the drawn cards for the whole game the player can plan his strategy for the battle with more confidence.

Phase 1: Selection of the DECK (up to player) -------> Phase 2 Cards for the battle are drawn (up to luck) -------> Phase 3 Battle (up to opponents)

Of course for phase 3 there' still the matter of not knowing what cards did the opponent draw, therefore there is still a random factor even there, and no 100% winning strategy and perhaps there isn't any chance you can win if you made a real bad initial draw. Nevertheless, it's more comfortable to play knowing that the tide of the battle has more chances to be turned at every turn by a good/bad strategy rather than by a lucky/unlucky draw that you get halfway.

Card balance would also be next to impossible, all cards within a certain rank/cost/whatever would have to be equal, or you'd just have cards that would never get played. (Of course bad cards also exist in PSCD, but you'd often have to put some in the deck and make them work for you if you drew them.) The random factor means you don't have to design quite as tightly for balance, because replaying a game will change everything. I think that's really helpful, as you don't have to worry quite so much about getting everything exactly right.

Yes and no, because in PSDC you can still enter the battle with less cards than the deck's limit, therefore you can already exclude all the cards that could make things difficult for you, and consequently increase the chances that you'll always draw a useful card or a right combination of cards. In my playthrough I rarely started a battle with more than 15-20 cards in my deck, even for battles where up to 30 cards were allowed, with the exception of some Matricks' encounter in the end game, where rather than a strategy you just needed a lot of firepower.

While the puzzles in the Gwent Thronebreaker game are neat, there's no replay value, and it requires much more focused design when it comes to difficulty.

I haven't played Thronebreaker yet, therefore I can't say anything about it, but regarding Gwent in The Witcher 3 what really broke the balance for me were spies, which are not only the most OP cards but have also the perk to be available for 2 decks only (Northern Realm and Nilfgaard). Once that I had those decks set with spies + decoy + high damage cards I became almost invincible. Never touched a single time the other 3 decks, and I used to destroy every opponent that was using them. I think that it would be enough that they limited the use of some special cards to keep the balance, but in the end it was just a minigame therefore I couldn't expect it to be perfect.

[Franka]

Yes I think you are right. In that case perhaps the right balance could be obtained by doing only the initial draw rather than drawing some cards every turn.

That could work. I'd argue that building a good deck involves manipulation of luck, to the point where a bad draw only means changing your strategy, not an automatic loss, but I get that the common complaint from people who aren't used to deck building has to do with the randomness of draws.

Yes and no, because in PSDC you can still enter the battle with less cards than the deck's limit, therefore you can already exclude all the cards that could make things difficult for you, and consequently increase the chances that you'll always draw a useful card or a right combination of cards. In my playthrough I rarely started a battle with more than 15-20 cards in my deck

A possible strategy, especially if you reload and build your deck to suit the opponent. For the most part, I tried to keep my decks as close to an initial concept as possible, and that requires max cards for flexibility and to avoid running out.

I haven't played Thronebreaker yet, therefore I can't say anything about it, but regarding Gwent in The Witcher 3 what really broke the balance for me were spies, which are not only the most OP cards but have also the perk to be available for 2 decks only (Northern Realm and Nilfgaard).

Gwent has been completely redesigned a couple of times since Witcher 3. While there's still something akin to the spy mechanic, it's much more balanced now, as is the entire game. Thronebreaker is quite fun, though I don't feel the AI is good enough. I'll still take it over human opponents, I seem to always meet the worst scum possible.

[jack1974]

That could work. I'd argue that building a good deck involves manipulation of luck, to the point where a bad draw only means changing your strategy, not an automatic loss

Hehe go tell this to Hearthstone devs
I now basically play the first 4-5 turns, then I already know by then if I have any chances to win or not. I probably surrender over 50% of the matches, because I know no matter what I'll do, I cannot win. And I don't have time to lose playing a match already lost

[Franka]

"....building a good deck..."

[jack1974]

I don't know if you played it recently, but in practice I have the decks of the top 10 guys, and still can win about 50% of battles. Which means the other 50% is won/lost purely on luck

[Franka]

Nah, I stopped playing Hearthstone long ago. Way too much RNG and toxic players.