Is Gwent a pay to win game?

[Stormbuster]

Your definition of whether or not the game is P2W is based on how many of the top players are F2P, right?

This is not at all my definition.

My definition is that a pay to win game is a free access game, with the possibility to buy various stuff for real money, which is giving the donors some advantages over the rest of (f2p) players.

Hidden or transparent advantages. If it is transparent, than it is ethical. Everyone playing that game is aware of the main rule: winning more (and I am not saying always) is related to buying special items, heroes, etc, which are not available for free. If it is not transparent...well I will not go into this direction as it seems to create brain level disturbances for donors. Their standard replies are instantly bringing in front of my eyes a mass of true believers chanting "Burn Giordano !!!" (Bruno, of course).

Using this ratio is flawed on every level and almost tells you nothing. Even if all players in the top 1000 have paid for the game, you still cannot determine whether or not it's P2W based of these stats.

So, you say if flip I coin with p2w/f2p sides 1000 times, there is nothing fishy if I get 1000 times the p2w side? It is still a probability, I admit it....9.32 x 10 ^ -302. Or you say that all best players in Gwent are very lucky donors? This is another significantly lower probability, and I am so ashamed I cannot calculate it.....

So, basically, you say that if all 1000 are donors, than it tells nothing., even if the split between donors and f2p is 100000 : 100000. To be honest, arguing with this statement of yours is way beyond my intellectual capabilities......

Heck, even if every player playing this game has paid for it, you still cannot say it's P2W just from these statistics. You just cannot; it is not possible.

ROFL. The the ratio between donors - f2p would be 100:0 ...then I guess even my humble person would not be surprised to discover that the the same ratio applied to high ranked players is the same 100:0. ROFL.

You keep running in circles with you arguments and it starts to fall apart.

I was not giving any arguments. Only opinions, summarized here for you:

a) in my opinion game is p2w. As it is an opinion I am not kept to justify it and I didn't. I only have presented some findings.
b1) game is more rewarding than any other
b2) corollary for b1: for anyone, f2p player or donor player, is really easy to build a competitive deck

Given b2, the head start a donor may have, presumably equal distribution of skill and equal distribution of luck between donors and f2p groups the logical step would be to consider that if the ratio between donors and f2p players is x:y then in high rank you should find: x+delta : y-delta. If the first ratio is 50:50 I wouldn't say it is improbable to have the second at 75:25. But if the second is 98:2, than the question marks will rise up to the sky. Doctors, engineers, biologists, etc. all are learning the same. If a series of events falls apart from normal distribution given all known influences than something is highly likely broken! Intentionally or not!

Cannot see any of my circles, sorry. Just a plain straight logic: If A then, with a probability of 99.(9), B. And not the 9 x 10 ^ -302 probability C.

I remember some other sayings of Einstein and Mark Twain....

 

[Stormbuster]

That is not my opinion. That is a true statement based on many players doing so. (I haven't paid and I am high ranked. Please explain that.)

There are some few people around stating this. Ok. Out of this you make a rule? I can make a rule to: I am sure that you would have been part of the crowd asking to burn Giordano Bruno. "What a wierd idea, earth is revolving sun and not the other way, as our Holy Fathers are telling us and we are so many believing them...." would have been your thoughts.

I saw lots of people saying yes, you can advance on ladder, with an average 1:3 win loss ratio. I don't like it and consequently not even tried the ranked games.

And I didn't say I lose. Most of the days I have like 8 victories in casual because the unbalanced RNG I was claiming is compensated by the average skills of my opponents. So that I can make quite fast the 6+12 daily quest. Where did I say I am losing that much?

You only presumed that I am posting because I am losing big. I understand you. It fits with your true believer profile. LOL

And why should I try to explain something I cannot check. Can be I lie or not. They could be f2p or not. In the same note, I can lie or not in respect to the odd RNG I encounter. Only the one making the statement knows the truth. I, for one, am not asking anyone to believe it or not. Just posting my real (or invented) findings. What it is really funny for me is that you have no doubts for one side, and automatically whomever is sustaining the idea of earth revolving sun is a non skilled liar.

I remember HS. Two-three years ago, few people were saying on forums that RNG is rigged. And lots of true believers "burning" them on flames. Now lots of donors are reckoning that HS is rigged in so many aspects just to milk them. Same people whom two years ago would have burnt you alive if displaying such "conspiracy theories".

Gwent is still young my little one!

The weird analogy was completely unnecessary.

Weird, ROFL. What world are you living? Mars? I changed only the name of the company; there are several international companies involved in huge scandals related to differentiated quality for the products they sell in various parts of the globe under same name. Internet is full. And given my personal experience.... I really had some bad bottles of Coke here and there in the world.

You failed to understand from a RL example a simple fact: you cannot see/taste/hear/smell the same way another person thousand km away does in respect to a particular product.

Good for governments they have such a large pool of true believers, lol.

Fun is fun, but enough is enough. Don't bother anymore, will not grant you any other reply.

 

[D4mian]

Of course it's not. Dagon decks are pretty cheap.

 

[gards]

It is in the early levels (pre ranked matches, I have two accounts). People want to climb the ladder faster and are willing to pay real money for that, fair enough. Then, they get higher up the ladder, faster than those who are not paying for kegs. Then! haha they hit a brick wall. Those guys at much higher levels have been playing longer and already have great cards. I just played a guy at LVL 5 who has cards (I wrote down his name) whose deck was a rank 10 players deck. Which again, fair enough.
Another friend of mine who is ranked way higher than me told me how he can't win a game anymore at rank 15. The win loss ratio is almost the same for him. So, he isn't progressing. The end-game is rank 18/20 or so I would think. Where winning and losing is happening by such tiny margins or excellent gameplay. I admire all of the guys, up there haha.

 

[gards]

There are some few people around stating this. Ok. Out of this you make a rule? I can make a rule to: I am sure that you would have been part of the crowd asking to burn Giordano Bruno. "What a wierd idea, earth is revolving sun and not the other way, as our Holy Fathers are telling us and we are so many believing them...." would have been your thoughts.

I saw lots of people saying yes, you can advance on ladder, with an average 1:3 win loss ratio. I don't like it and consequently not even tried the ranked games.

And I didn't say I lose. Most of the days I have like 8 victories in casual because the unbalanced RNG I was claiming is compensated by the average skills of my opponents. So that I can make quite fast the 6+12 daily quest. Where did I say I am losing that much?

You only presumed that I am posting because I am losing big. I understand you. It fits with your true believer profile. LOL

And why should I try to explain something I cannot check. Can be I lie or not. They could be f2p or not. In the same note, I can lie or not in respect to the odd RNG I encounter. Only the one making the statement knows the truth. I, for one, am not asking anyone to believe it or not. Just posting my real (or invented) findings. What it is really funny for me is that you have no doubts for one side, and automatically whomever is sustaining the idea of earth revolving sun is a non skilled liar.

I remember HS. Two-three years ago, few people were saying on forums that RNG is rigged. And lots of true believers "burning" them on flames. Now lots of donors are reckoning that HS is rigged in so many aspects just to milk them. Same people whom two years ago would have burnt you alive if displaying such "conspiracy theories".

Gwent is still young my little one!



Weird, ROFL. What world are you living? Mars? I changed only the name of the company; there are several international companies involved in huge scandals related to differentiated quality for the products they sell in various parts of the globe under same name. Internet is full. And given my personal experience.... I really had some bad bottles of Coke here and there in the world.

You failed to understand from a RL example a simple fact: you cannot see/taste/hear/smell the same way another person thousand km away does in respect to a particular product.

Good for governments they have such a large pool of true believers, lol.

Fun is fun, but enough is enough. Don't bother anymore, will not grant you any other reply.

I applaud your literary skills sir! Great response.

I digress. I live in China, the land of fake goods. Coke over here is not the same coke as, over there. That's the real coke, from coca-cola but it's ingredients, I swear. Not the same. Times this by several thousands for other products sold in China.

 

[4RM3D]

First of all a friendly reminder to please avoid personal attacks. Most of the discussion is fine, but some remarks here and there are pushing it a bit too far.

---

My definition is that a pay to win game is a free access game, with the possibility to buy various stuff for real money, which is giving the donors some advantages over the rest of (f2p) players.
[...]
a) in my opinion game is p2w. As it is an opinion I am not kept to justify it and I didn't. I only have presented some findings.
b1) game is more rewarding than any other
b2) corollary for b1: for anyone, f2p player or donor player, is really easy to build a competitive deck

Well, if that's the case then we are in an agreement. That would actually leave very little to discuss regarding regarding the P2W element. But you seem to want to make a point about the ratio of F2P : P2W across the ranks...

So, basically, you say that if all 1000 are donors, than it tells nothing., even if the split between donors and f2p is 100000 : 100000.

I said it tells you little about whether or not the game is P2W. The numbers on their own are not enough, you also need context. If you compare the bottom 50% with the top 50% (of all players), then the numbers are still skewed because a lot of beginners might just drop the game regardless and a lot of pros might just invest money regardless. You would have to find a rock solid definition of what qualifies as a P2W boost and find a way to measure that with all the data available. Then you can use the numbers to evaluate if the spread in Gwent is acceptable. On a side note, when every player in the top 1000 has bought something, then that is of course significant. But you still have to point that number in relation with something else which is also significant in order to give the result context.

 

[sfruzz]

Given b2, the head start a donor may have, presumably equal distribution of skill and equal distribution of luck between donors and f2p groups the logical step would be to consider that if the ratio between donors and f2p players is x:y then in high rank you should find: x+delta : y-delta. If the first ratio is 50:50 I wouldn't say it is improbable to have the second at 75:25. But if the second is 98:2, than the question marks will rise up to the sky. Doctors, engineers, biologists, etc. all are learning the same. If a series of events falls apart from normal distribution given all known influences than something is highly likely broken! Intentionally or not!

Not really. The distribution can still be fairly skewed.

For example, if you are a streamer, you would like to have the full collection and have a lot of flashy cards just to entertain your viewers. This might lead you to invest money in the game. Streamers are commonly found at high ranks which could bias the result of the analysis of the population.

During winter I like to go to ski. My ski equipment is average.
During winter an olympic athlete goes skiing. His/her equipment is top-notch.

You can assume that his/her success lies in the equipment, but in reality it only represents an extension of his/her committment to the activity.

 

[Chaltain]

Just my .0002 worth, but asking if a fremium game is "pay to win" is akin to asking if a restaurant is "pay to eat." Sure, you can sit there and do nothing but drink the free water the entire time you're there. You can also spend money to enjoy the food that everyone else who spent money is enjoying. Now if you go into that restaurant and demand or expect to have the same experience as paying customers, you'd probably get thrown out. Going in to a fremium game and not spending any money, yet expecting the same instantaneous benefits and advantages of those who did spend money (I.E. more and better cards at the start) doesn't make sense. I bought kegs. Why? To help me win. I paid to win. Either pay for the benefits or grind for them. Those are your options.

 

[Snake_Foxhounder]

Simply put, the game is both free-to-play (and do fine) and pay-to win.

Up until the point you get a decent deck, you will get beaten by players who bought a substantial amount of kegs. Take two level 5 players for example. One bought kegs, the other didn't. The player who bought kegs has a big advantage, be it by getting good cards from kegs or making them from scraps. At such levels, with beginner decks, a few good cards make all the difference and the other player simply can't keep up. No amount of tactics will help that.

At a certain point you get yourself a decent deck. Might not be the best but it works if played right. At this point the p2w aspect fades and all the gold cards in the world won't help the player who bought them. Even if your deck isn't top of the line, you can do well with careful thinking.


So it goes both ways. Paying can give a huge advantage to new players but at a certain point it stops being an issue for f2p players.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

There are some few people around stating this. Ok. Out of this you make a rule? I can make a rule to: I am sure that you would have been part of the crowd asking to burn Giordano Bruno. "What a wierd idea, earth is revolving sun and not the other way, as our Holy Fathers are telling us and we are so many believing them...." would have been your thoughts.

F2P players in high ranked is not a theory. It's actually happening. I don't know why you think that is comparable to believing the sun is revolving around the earth.

You only presumed that I am posting because I am losing big. I understand you. It fits with your true believer profile. LOL

Well there has to be a reason that you think the game is pay to win. Earlier you were complaining about losing to do bad draws.

And why should I try to explain something I cannot check. Can be I lie or not. They could be f2p or not. In the same note, I can lie or not in respect to the odd RNG I encounter. Only the one making the statement knows the truth.

The RNG you encounter has nothing to do with whether or not the game is pay 2 win.

Weird, ROFL. What world are you living? Mars? I changed only the name of the company; there are several international companies involved in huge scandals related to differentiated quality for the products they sell in various parts of the globe under same name. Internet is full. And given my personal experience.... I really had some bad bottles of Coke here and there in the world.

You failed to understand from a RL example a simple fact: you cannot see/taste/hear/smell the same way another person thousand km away does in respect to a particular product.

Good for governments they have such a large pool of true believers, lol.

Fun is fun, but enough is enough. Don't bother anymore, will not grant you any other reply.

You misinterpret simple RNG and turn it into a conspiracy theory. The game is obviously not rigged or favor those who paid over those who don't.

 

[about28raverz]

The amount of luck required to win can be rather annoying, every time I get a new keg it contains the exact opposite of what I need to make my favoured faction not suck completely. I'll keep trying though, I've spent a fair amount of money and won plenty of kegs but I've still yet to see a gold card for my faction.
Its weird because I rarely lose on casual but as soon as I try ranked matches I get destroyed by opposite decks that often go past 100 points, my stats suck and now I have anxiety lol.

 

[NetTroll]

nope. Started early June - and now I have kinda all cards I want - 293 summary. And 1 animated deck. I think, it's some problem - it's too easy to get all cards. And right now there is no problem to get what you want. Especially if every patch you save your cards and get tons of scraps.

 

[NetTroll]

and yeah, top-500, without donate. Was top-60, but my impatience do wrong thing =(

 

[about28raverz]

Ok so I've been doing a bit of math to understand the elements to winning in this game. Unfortunately it seems that whilst the game is fun and addictive, if you want to win - you essentially need to sell out and drop your favoured play styles.
Lets be honest now, anyone who has played enough will recognise that certain cards are overpowered, such a shame really - I cant justify how giving someone a certain card over a card with double the worth of the other is a sensible design idea.
Hopefully this changes after the beta stages, it's simple things like this and certain cards for example that force you to attack when you have the only cards on the table. I can't see how enforcing this option was a sensible idea.
I have to confess that I am addicted, but I will be spending no money until certain flaws are fixed, honestly however I have never played a flawless game but I will avoid the ranking system until the game is considered more fair.
In a weird way I much prefer TW3 version of gwent due to its simplicity, however I have four weeks of recovery after surgery to sit on my butt and consider my opinion wrong.

Tdlr: luck & money/time spent over actual intelligence is required to win.

P.S. I bet whoever is rank one hasn't unlocked as many impenetrable fogs as I have (coming from a level 12 lol)

 

[Mombamambo]

I am saying this as someone who used to play Hearthstone, Duelyst, and currently plays Gwent, Shadowverse and TES:legends, Gwent is by far the most generous among these online CCGs. You can get a semi competitive deck from the very beginning if you dust 4 factions or you can just grind for a month for the same deck without dusting. Also, Gwent is the only CCG where you are not forced to play factions for specific daily quests, I am beyond grateful for this.

 

[Mnorojo]

Yeah. Id say the game is very genourous. It is easy to get two kegs every day. And each keg averages out to about 80 scrap plus the other daily scraps from GG. So even if you dont get the cards you want you can still mill for a silver card every two days, or a gold every four. Not to mention you can mill the other factions cards you started out with. I basically milled down my ST, SK and Monsters cards to build a strong NR deck. Then I began builldinf up my NG. So without spending any money and playing for about six weeks, I have all the major cards from NG and NR factions and most the good neutrals. I'm now trying to build up my ST faction. But its been from scratch. I even milled the leaders. Oh well. It gives me a reason to still play.

Most importantly, I enjoy the game. Sure I used a net deck to hit level 19 in the ranking for the rewards. But afterwards, I just play around in casual with different playstyles. Even then it's getting a little stale. But new cards are on the way.

 

[DMaster2]

Ok so I've been doing a bit of math to understand the elements to winning in this game. Unfortunately it seems that whilst the game is fun and addictive, if you want to win - you essentially need to sell out and drop your favoured play styles.
Lets be honest now, anyone who has played enough will recognise that certain cards are overpowered, such a shame really - I cant justify how giving someone a certain card over a card with double the worth of the other is a sensible design idea.
Hopefully this changes after the beta stages, it's simple things like this and certain cards for example that force you to attack when you have the only cards on the table. I can't see how enforcing this option was a sensible idea.
I have to confess that I am addicted, but I will be spending no money until certain flaws are fixed, honestly however I have never played a flawless game but I will avoid the ranking system until the game is considered more fair.
In a weird way I much prefer TW3 version of gwent due to its simplicity, however I have four weeks of recovery after surgery to sit on my butt and consider my opinion wrong.

Tdlr: luck & money/time spent over actual intelligence is required to win.

P.S. I bet whoever is rank one hasn't unlocked as many impenetrable fogs as I have (coming from a level 12 lol)

Let's be honest, every deck costs is fixed. 4400 scraps (4 golds and 6 silvers, which may decrease with starting gold and silvers) plus the bronzes (you will swim into them given enough time). The game is super generous and if anyone think seriously it's p2w he should really feel bad about himself.

 

[lomvicmarko]

Let's be honest, every deck costs is fixed. 4400 scraps (4 golds and 6 silvers, which may decrease with starting gold and silvers) plus the bronzes (you will swim into them given enough time). The game is super generous and if anyone think seriously it's p2w he should really feel bad about himself.

Yup just compare it to hearthstone and you realize that gwent is pure haven.

 

[Stormbuster]

nope. Started early June - and now I have kinda all cards I want - 293 summary. And 1 animated deck. I think, it's some problem - it's too easy to get all cards. And right now there is no problem to get what you want. Especially if every patch you save your cards and get tons of scraps.

and yeah, top-500, without donate. Was top-60, but my impatience do wrong thing =(

Given your level, if started early June you played around 1750 games in some 55 days (considered that to reach level 56 you needed 176400 XP and @ 54% WR that means 1740 games in total - took 100 xp as an average for both lost and won games - guess is even lower).
Then 1750 / 55 = 31 games per day . A game is taking an average of 8 minutes = app. 240 mins / day. 3 = 4 hours every day. 220 hours in total since you play.

Now take player ranked the 9th. Level 23. 75% WR in ranked that would mean around 305 games to reach it. At 8 mins per game = 2440 mins = 61 hours of play. If that guy started the game same time than he needed only 1 hour per day to get same result as you did.

That would mean that his learning curve was faster and got skilled earlier and/or his RNG is better than yours. While I don't know your evolution in terms of number of games needed to step up the ranks, it is hard to say which of the two aspects had more importance.

I noted that in every percentile of top 1000 there are players with low levels low number of games and the other way round. From around level 23 and 230 games up to level 75 and 2800 games. Quite a high deviation in my opinion for players ranked very close.

As nobody else but the devs have access to statistical data, it is impossible to draw a conclusion, which in my opinion could one out of the two:
a) If in top 1000 there are both f2p and donors somewhat fairly distributed in regard to average numbers of games needed to reach a certain rank I would say that, beyond any doubt, the game is not p2w!

b) If, for reaching the same rank it comes up that donors need an average significantly lower number of games that would mean, in my opinion, differentiated RNG, thus p2w element in place.

(For both a and b should be considered an average difference given by the average head start a donor would have; so, in order to make a correct comparison, their average number of games played to reach a certain rank should be first unbiased with the said difference)

X(r) - average number of games played by a donor for reach rank (r)
Y(r) - average number of games played by a f2p player for reach rank (r)
delta - average number of games a donor would have as head start given they would be a able to build faster a competitive deck.

so if X(r) - delta is comparable with Y(r) then is a)
if X(r) - delta << Y(r) than is b)

 

[p3rkele]

Every CCG is a pay2win game. The starter decks are horrible and only win against each other. It took ~100 hours for me to get enough cards that I could say I'm really making my own decks. Nearly 300 hours and I still don't have them all.