Thanks, appreciated. Apt timing, as I've just lost a ranked game because of exactly this stupid, flawed design. I literally counted the cards used - lost purely and simply as the opponent had one more silver and one more gold than me, the latter was ironically Shupe - the one gold card I didn't draw!!
Lost count of the amount of times I redraw the card I got rid of in the next round. Something isn't quite right with the redraw. Not even sure 25 cards is right. Maybe lose a gold, a silver and 3 bronze, take it to 20.
Regardless of the general stuff, evening up the deal seems to me to be a really, blatantly necessary mechanic. How is it remotely possible to expect a hand of bronze and silvers to beat a sprinkling of golds? It's a RNG game without it.
The deck has to be randomised, I understand that, else the game couldn't exist. Bit like Pazaak - you don't get to pick your hand. But it has to be randomised the same for each player. Am I missing something here, or would that completely even things up???
Lost count of the amount of times I redraw the card I got rid of in the next round. Something isn't quite right with the redraw. Not even sure 25 cards is right. Maybe lose a gold, a silver and 3 bronze, take it to 20.
Regardless of the general stuff, evening up the deal seems to me to be a really, blatantly necessary mechanic. How is it remotely possible to expect a hand of bronze and silvers to beat a sprinkling of golds? It's a RNG game without it.
The deck has to be randomised, I understand that, else the game couldn't exist. Bit like Pazaak - you don't get to pick your hand. But it has to be randomised the same for each player. Am I missing something here, or would that completely even things up???
Last edited:
How about instead of this, the mulligan would stay the same with a slight change like this:
The first card you mulligan and all of it's copies would be placed on the bottom half of the deck.
The second you mulligan and all of it's copies placed on the middle somewhere.
The third in the the top half.
If you mulligan the same 3 cards. one goes bottom half, one in the middle, and one somewhere in the top.
By the way which cards shuffle your deck? Bran, Dandelion? or there's no shuffle?
The first card you mulligan and all of it's copies would be placed on the bottom half of the deck.
The second you mulligan and all of it's copies placed on the middle somewhere.
The third in the the top half.
If you mulligan the same 3 cards. one goes bottom half, one in the middle, and one somewhere in the top.
By the way which cards shuffle your deck? Bran, Dandelion? or there's no shuffle?
nedders;n10915151 said:
A Shupe-deck has a harder time in the mulligan phase as you cannot blacklist copies of your bronze cards. This means that your chances of fishing gold / silver cards are lower, as you cannot exclude any bronze card from your drawing. The gold/bronze ratio of cards you draw is affected by the strategy you have chosen.
When you build a deck with a strong win condition, you have to plan a way to get to it. I'm assuming you run Royal Decree + thinning to ensure you draw it.
Anyway I find incoherent to get annoyed by randomness and, at the same time, go for a highly RNG card like Shupe.
sfruzz;n10915616 said:
My deck isnt reliant on RNG. i play Shupe deck because it's fun and not formulaic. My win is not based on drawing Shupe. Hell, that card just cost me the last game - played Knight against SK deck hoping to get a 25 base, didn't get it, had three options I couldn't use. So it;s still screwed, but that's the risk - by contrast, Shupe won me the match before.
More often I win with something like a Pavko/Pit Trap/Brouver/Iris combination, or just by Iorveth/Schirru dismantling the higher cards. It's varied. Sometimes I win from Ithine slamming two Thunders.
I'm not getting irked by randomness, I'm irked by unfairness. Not sure how much clearer I could be, but if you can't understand that it's harder to win because the opponent draws better cards then you're beyond explanation.
It's a card game. If your opponent draws four aces and you draw a pair of jacks, the odds of losing the game are high. Call it unfair if you will, but has nothing to do with Gwent, other than Gwent being a card game. In the long run both you and your opponent are going to have the exact same probability of drawing the strongest card in the deck.
Or we should have a Poker version in which all the players start with four aces in their hands...
Your deck is reliant on RNG, as in one game you got "three options you couldn't use" and (your own words) "it cost you the game", while "by contrast Shupe won you the match before".
Or we should have a Poker version in which all the players start with four aces in their hands...
nedders;n10916876 said:
Your deck is reliant on RNG, as in one game you got "three options you couldn't use" and (your own words) "it cost you the game", while "by contrast Shupe won you the match before".
sfruzz;n10917131 said:
So because one physical card game has those rules, a game which could be levelled up easier shouldn't aim to be more evenly balanced? It's a video game, rather than a card game, it requires coding and as a result could be coded differently. It's just an opinion, I don't dispute that "in the long run" it's probably 50/50-ish, but the joy from playing better vs knowing you had the better/worse deal makes for a longer life.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear on the Shupe point; perhaps it's a different point to RNG, more about the formulaic nature of some games. Skellige pattern is always the same, Nilfgaard boost/reveal/wyvern shield combo is tiresome. End of the day, it's just an opinion and if the game's not for me, then I should just move on!
Yup, mulligan bug is absolutely fixed. Playing Henselt, mulligan 3 dun banners in round 1, draw 2 of them in round 2 and mulligan one, play spy still having 13 cards in the deck...get choice between 2 dun banners. This clearly means all the mulliganed cards ended up on the top of the deck. This issue is even worse than create. I'm really losing interest in this game. It only makes me angry, nothing else. It's all about coinflip and if you get favourable/unfavourable matchup. Getting 5 times in a row Brouver on blue coin + wardancer is really funny, who wouldn't like to play a game like that, right? It seems to me that the developers have never played this game or I really don't know. Don't try to tell me that it is so difficult to fix the mulligan bug in several months...
Sincerely, frustrated former fan of this game
Sincerely, frustrated former fan of this game
Sariel_;n10922978 said:
Before you post something of the "mulligan bug is the same or worse", do you have any data to back it up? Getting some mulliganed cards back is a mathematical probability regardless of anything.
@OP
I don't like the idea at all. It means if you didn't draw any golds, you screwed because there's no way you can blacklist bronzes in mulligan to obtain those.
HenryGrosmont;n10923140 said:
Before you post something of the "mulligan bug is the same or worse", do you have any data to back it up? Getting some mulliganed cards back is a mathematical probability regardless of anything.
@OP
I don't like the idea at all. It means if you didn't draw any golds, you screwed because there's no way you can blacklist bronzes in mulligan to obtain those.
Man, everybody knows the mulligan bug is not fixed. Redrawing mulliganed cards happens every single game. If you don't see it, you just probably don't want to.
You should check some streams, everybody will tell you that it is not fixed.
The mulligans bug is definitely not fix. I see it in other streamers games so it's just not me. But I have become very cautious when to use my mulligan and that has help a little but it also reduces my chance at getting the cards I absolutely need to win a round/match.
Sariel_;n10923317 said:
Until there's a hard data to prove it, it's just a hearsay. Burza said that they tinkered with the code. Fixed? Idon't think so. Got different/a little better? Maybe, idk. But to make such claims you need proof.
Also, you should never ever bring streamers as an authority into conversation for they're nothing more than players who just stream their games. Many of them isn't even good, but that besides the point. Their opinion is as reliable as yours, or mine. In fact, I play Gwent since day one of CB and I have a much longer Gwent experience (add to that my ladder standings every season) while many of them are newbies compared to me and a few people I know... so, tough cookies. My point is, a person's opinion should be examined on the "is it a well thought and worthy opinion?" merit and not, "hey, this dude/gal streams his/her games".