A simple coin flip solution back from the CBT

[Esmer]

A simple coin flip solution back from the CBT

First of all, sorry for not posting in this topic (don't want to necropost, but mods can merge if they see fit) and sorry if this was discussed (I couldn't find it).

Remember when we had ST faction ability back in the CBT? They could choose who goes first in a round once per match. If a player who lost a coin flip gets this ability, it helps a lot in the following cases which often happen when you go first: win a round with -2 CA or lose a round on equal cards. I will leave spies out of the equation for the sake of simplicity since that's a different issue.

In the first case (win with -2CA) it's sometimes impossible to regain CA since you have to play 1st in the second round and your opponent might have carryover. However, if you choose to play second thanks to the ability described above, you can regain 1CA and/or bleed your opponent even when he has a carryover. And he still goes 1st in the last round. So in the worst case in the last round you have -1 CA and your opponent goes first.

In the second case (lose on equal cards) you always have to go first in the 3rd round. Moreover, if you had no carryover, you have -1CA. So, again, the ability above would make your opponent going first in the 3rd round, which makes things better for you.

If there's a draw in the first round, you simply choose your opponent to go first in the second one (it already works exactly like this in the game right now).

There's another case: you go first and your opponent wins going down 1 card. Again, if you had no carryover, you have to play first in the last round and be on equal cards with the opponent. With the ability above, you make him go first in the 3rd round.

Bottom line, in all of these cases (which cover most of the outcomes, I believe), the ability above provides a bonus to the player who lost a coin flip without being overpowered or too hard to implement in the game and explain to the community.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Yes, I remember ST ability in the CBT was too powerful, but that was because they could win a coin flip and you had to go first in all 3 rounds.

P.P.S. This solution also fixes carryover. If you go first and your opponent loses round 1, his carryover no longer prevents you from dry passing, because you choose that he goes first in R2.

 

[iamthedave]

As I've said elsewhere I don't think this solves the problem, because the issue isn't front-end, it's back-end. The coin flip is not the problem; the problem is that he who plays last has a massive advantage over he who plays first.

No matter what you do to spice up the coin flip, without a secondary win mechanic, I don't think there's a way to address the actual problem that's making people upset.

Think about it.

Magic the Gathering has life total as a goal. If you let a red player - the colour of fast damage - go first, you might be dead before you've drawn your third or fourth card (some decks are that fast). In this regard, he who goes first can get actual benefit from doing so. They get to start their strategy fastest, and their strategy is to kill you as fast as possible. Sure, you have card advantage. What does that help if you're dead?

In Gwent, all that matters is who has the most points once all the cards are played. So the person who goes last has the final chance to affect the number of points on the board. It doesn't matter - in strategy terms - if you go first. In fact its terrible. Going first means your opponent gets the first chance to mess with your strategy.

This seems an unfixable structural problem with points as a sole win condition.

 

[4RM3D]

iamthedave

There are many facets which makes the coin flip problematic. When losing the coin flip, it's not just about who goes last in the final round, but also about exerting control over your opponent. When you start first, you also have to match your opponent's strength, otherwise you go down 2 cards to win. This is made worse by the silver spies. However, fixing that is a different issue. Though, one that might also partially fix the coin flip.

 

[Makhil]

The alternative is that both players play simultaneously. That would change the whole game and you would need to give cards an initiative rank, even a simple one like gold cards fire first, then silver, then bronze...

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

As I've said elsewhere I don't think this solves the problem, because the issue isn't front-end, it's back-end. The coin flip is not the problem; the problem is that he who plays last has a massive advantage over he who plays first.

No matter what you do to spice up the coin flip, without a secondary win mechanic, I don't think there's a way to address the actual problem that's making people upset.

Think about it.

Magic the Gathering has life total as a goal. If you let a red player - the colour of fast damage - go first, you might be dead before you've drawn your third or fourth card (some decks are that fast). In this regard, he who goes first can get actual benefit from doing so. They get to start their strategy fastest, and their strategy is to kill you as fast as possible. Sure, you have card advantage. What does that help if you're dead?

In Gwent, all that matters is who has the most points once all the cards are played. So the person who goes last has the final chance to affect the number of points on the board. It doesn't matter - in strategy terms - if you go first. In fact its terrible. Going first means your opponent gets the first chance to mess with your strategy.

This seems an unfixable structural problem with points as a sole win condition.

Nice analysis.

I wish they at least started to try methods to fix the coinflip (countless have been suggested, the "starting point auction" looks the best to me).

 

[Esmer]

In Gwent, all that matters is who has the most points once all the cards are played. So the person who goes last has the final chance to affect the number of points on the board. It doesn't matter - in strategy terms - if you go first. In fact its terrible. Going first means your opponent gets the first chance to mess with your strategy.

But this is exactly what I am suggesting: if you lose a coin flip, you get the ability to change who goes first in one of the later rounds. This increases your chances to go last even if you went 1st in the 1st round.

 

[Esmer]

Nice analysis.

I wish they at least started to try methods to fix the coinflip (countless have been suggested, the "starting point auction" looks the best to me).

The problem is not the points, but who goes last.

Say, there is points auction. Then people would choose the maximum number they can beat with one card (to prevent dry pass from the player who goes first). This means that decks with higher tempo plays will always go second. And that would make the problem even worse.

For instance, NG reveal can easily be 40 points ahead by turn 3. And thanks to this auction they would always go second (because they can "bid" a higher number thanks to their tempo).

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

The problem is not the points, but who goes last.

Say, there is points auction. Then people would choose the maximum number they can beat with one card (to prevent dry pass from the player who goes first). This means that decks with higher tempo plays will always go second. And that would make the problem even worse.

For instance, NG reveal can easily be 40 points ahead by turn 3. And thanks to this auction they would always go second (because they can "bid" a higher number thanks to their tempo).

Decks, strategies and tempo plays would undoubtly change according to the change in coinflip mechanic.

I doubt there would be a chance for a Reveal deck to play as you wrote above, if the auction would be implemented.

 

[Esmer]

I doubt there would be a chance for a Reveal deck to play as you wrote above, if the auction would be implemented.

Player #1 says: I agree to go first for X points.
Player #2 says: I agree to go first for Y points.

If X<Y player #1 goes first, right?

Is this the auction you are talking about?

If yes, than every tempo deck will always say the highest number they can beat in one turn (so they win round 1 with -1CA if Player #1 goes first and passes ).
However, low tempo decks won't be able to beat that number (since if they win a coin flip, they can't beat it in 1 card and will either lose on even cards or win with -2 CA).

This means that tempo decks will always go second against slower decks. This, in turn, means, that they either win round 1 with -1 CA and can bleed their opponent round 2, or they have the last say in round 1 and the worst could happen for them is they lose round 1 with +1 CA.

To me this auction thing doesn't fix the problem, it even makes it worse.

 

[iamthedave]

Decks, strategies and tempo plays would undoubtly change according to the change in coinflip mechanic.

I doubt there would be a chance for a Reveal deck to play as you wrote above, if the auction would be implemented.

Explain? While 40 points might be an exaggeration, current reveal's turn 2 play is around that number, assuming no disruption.

 

[Tir_na_Lia]

Player #1 says: I agree to go first for X points.
Player #2 says: I agree to go first for Y points.

If X<Y player #1 goes first, right?

Is this the auction you are talking about?

If yes, than every tempo deck will always say the highest number they can beat in one turn (so they win round 1 with -1CA if Player #1 goes first and passes ).
However, low tempo decks won't be able to beat that number (since if they win a coin flip, they can't beat it in 1 card and will either lose on even cards or win with -2 CA).

This means that tempo decks will always go second against slower decks. This, in turn, means, that they either win round 1 with -1 CA and can bleed their opponent round 2, or they have the last say in round 1 and the worst could happen for them is they lose round 1 with +1 CA.

To me this auction thing doesn't fix the problem, it even makes it worse.

On Reddit there is an exaustive explanation on how the auction system could work and why it would be a better outcome.

Explain? While 40 points might be an exaggeration, current reveal's turn 2 play is around that number, assuming no disruption.

Devs would probably change high-tempo cards (like Imp.Golem) to prevent huge swings.

 

[Esmer]

On Reddit there is an exaustive explanation on how the auction system could work and why it would be a better outcome.

There're several threads on reddit. And all of those suggest basically the same: give some points to player who bets less and goes first. And I already explained above how this makes the problem even worse. I am not even saying it makes the game even more complicated.

 

[Jeydra]

Player #1 says: I agree to go first for X points.
Player #2 says: I agree to go first for Y points.

If X<Y player #1 goes first, right?

Is this the auction you are talking about?

If yes, than every tempo deck will always say the highest number they can beat in one turn (so they win round 1 with -1CA if Player #1 goes first and passes ).
However, low tempo decks won't be able to beat that number (since if they win a coin flip, they can't beat it in 1 card and will either lose on even cards or win with -2 CA).

This means that tempo decks will always go second against slower decks. This, in turn, means, that they either win round 1 with -1 CA and can bleed their opponent round 2, or they have the last say in round 1 and the worst could happen for them is they lose round 1 with +1 CA.

To me this auction thing doesn't fix the problem, it even makes it worse.

Let's take Henselt as the tempo deck, and Eredin control as the slower deck. As the Eredin player I could for example quote 8 points. I can't beat this value with my typical start of Wild Hunt Hound into frost, but I can still beat it by playing a Rider. So if my opponent drypasses round 1 I still win the round down a card - an acceptable outcome.

Can you illustrate what Henselt could bid that could make the coin flip still a problem? Sure, the fact that Henselt can bid a larger number of points and therefore ensure he goes second means they're still the ones playing for a win in round 1 on equal cards. But they'd be facing a larger points difference right from turn 1, which alleviates the problem like it's supposed to.

 

[Esmer]

Can you illustrate what Henselt could bid that could make the coin flip still a problem? Sure, the fact that Henselt can bid a larger number of points and therefore ensure he goes second means they're still the ones playing for a win in round 1 on equal cards. But they'd be facing a larger points difference right from turn 1, which alleviates the problem like it's supposed to.

First of all, this is off topic. Secondly, Henselt can easily pull 17 points (Natalis -> Reinforcement -> Ronvid). He can also bid 21, get cavalry for 12 and play Ronvid. This is in case his opponent passes after losing a coin flip.

If Henselt's opponent choses to play anyway, additional 10-15 points won't make a difference. It would make getting cavalry from the deck even easier. Basically, Henselt won't have to use Thaler and will most likely still win the 1st round on equal cards. Then he will have Thaler to bleed the opponent in the second round.

You see, even if the player who goes first gets some bonus points, he still has to go down 1 CA to win the round simply because he is going first.

And again, the problem is not the points. The problem is that the player who goes second will most likely play the last card in round 3 which usually makes a huge swing. And my proposed solution fixes that in most common scenarios.

 

[Jeydra]

First of all, this is off topic. Secondly, Henselt can easily pull 17 points (Natalis -> Reinforcement -> Ronvid). He can also bid 21, get cavalry for 12 and play Ronvid. This is in case his opponent passes after losing a coin flip.

If Henselt's opponent choses to play anyway, additional 10-15 points won't make a difference. It would make getting cavalry from the deck even easier. Basically, Henselt won't have to use Thaler and will most likely still win the 1st round on equal cards. Then he will have Thaler to bleed the opponent in the second round.

You see, even if the player who goes first gets some bonus points, he still has to go down 1 CA to win the round simply because he is going first.

And again, the problem is not the points. The problem is that the player who goes second will most likely play the last card in round 3 which usually makes a huge swing. And my proposed solution fixes that in most common scenarios.

It's on topic because it doesn't seem like you understand the coin flip very well.

Let's get something clear from the outset. The desirable outcomes for round 1, regardless of whether one is going first or second, are in order:

Win round 1 up a card or better (almost never happens; if it does the rest of the game is usually a walkover)
Win round 1 on equal cards (means you can usually drypass round 2 and go into round 3 up a card + opponent going first)
Lose round 1 up two cards (means you're likely to have card advantage in round 3, and get the last play as well)
(large gap)
Win round 1 down a card (means you control the length of round 2 and get the last play in round 3)
Lose round 1 up a card (reverse scenario of the above)
(large gap)
Win round 1 down two cards
Lose round 1 on equal cards
Lose round 1 down a card or worse

Intrinsically there's nothing in this that depends on the coin flip. If I go first, build a lead of 40 points and my opponent doesn't pass, I can pass to lose round 1 up two cards. The coin flip comes into this because if you go first, you realistically cannot shoot for the best three scenarios. If I go first, build a lead of 40 points, a savvy opponent is going to realize that he cannot win round 1 down a card and therefore will pass. I get the 4th best scenario. However if I go second, I can attempt to get the 2nd and 3rd best scenarios. You assume from the get-go in the OP that the 2nd or 3rd best scenario has happened. That's pretty rare even in the current game. Don't forget that unless the opponent mulligans a Wardancer, the player going first can drypass round 1 to get the 5th best scenario, which is still better than getting the two scenarios in the OP.

Further your proposed solution doesn't even get you the last play advantage. If you enter round 3 down a card you do not have the last play regardless of whether you're going first or second in the round (leaving out spies).

Now consider something else. In a perfectly balanced game, one of the above scenarios is still going to happen. The most even results are the 4th and 5th scenarios. These already happen in the vast majority of current games. Therefore it's not undesirable to have either situation happen. It's true that the player going first still has to go down one card to win the round, but so what - that result is perfectly acceptable. And remember, if the player going first wins round 1 down a card, he gets to play the last card in round 3 (unless he gets out-carded in round 2).

Cavalry is definitely a problem, but that's a single card and can be reworked.

 

[Esmer]

Further your proposed solution doesn't even get you the last play advantage. If you enter round 3 down a card you do not have the last play regardless of whether you're going first or second in the round (leaving out spies).

But my solution minimizes the number of situations when you go into round 3 with -1 card. It's supposed to counter those possible best scenarios for your opponent when you go 1st.

 

[Theodrik]

I read lots of posts with ideas to the coin flip problem, and I saw a very simple and elegant suggestion (can't remember where tho, if someone knows the OP, tell me so I can quote):

• The players who wins the coin flip (goes 1st), wins every tie during the match. This implies that even if the player going first loses round 1 on even cards, he won't automatically get a card disadvantage on round 2 when the oponnent dry passes.

Together with this elegant suggestion, I'd like to add two more that I came up with. Probably someone else already talked about this in another thread, I didn't find it tho.

• The player who wins the 2nd round, goes last on the 3rd. This is to give a greater importance to the 2nd round and possibly prevent dry passing. Also, if the player who won the coin flip lost the 1st round, he will have a chance to play reactively on the last round.
• Silver Spies (CA) can only be played if you and your oponnent are on even cards or if you have less cards. This would prevent CA spies abuse and possibly decrease the importance of Silver Spies, decreasing the necessity of running it in every single deck.

Thoughts?

 

[Tschjo]

Cavalry is definitely a problem, but that's a single card and can be reworked.

Wrong. Cavalry is the solution. The counflip needs no change we just need more cards like cavalry that punish a player for trying to go for a too greedy tempo play

 

[Jeydra]

But my solution minimizes the number of situations when you go into round 3 with -1 card. It's supposed to counter those possible best scenarios for your opponent when you go 1st.

How? If your opponent loses round 1 up two cards or wins it on equal cards, they can drypass round 2 and no matter what you do you're going into round 3 with -1 card. There's no way changing who goes first in rounds 2 or 3 affects this. The idea that "if you lose round 1 on equal cards, then you win any ties in round 2" aims to address this directly, but that has splash impact on carryover cards.

 

[Esmer]

How? If your opponent loses round 1 up two cards or wins it on equal cards, they can drypass round 2 and no matter what you do you're going into round 3 with -1 card. There's no way changing who goes first in rounds 2 or 3 affects this. The idea that "if you lose round 1 on equal cards, then you win any ties in round 2" aims to address this directly, but that has splash impact on carryover cards.

Yes, but then you always go second in the 3rd round, not first.

Moreover, since you would make your opponent go first if you won the 1st round with -1 or -2 CA, this fights carryover, wardancers, etc. Your opponent would always have to play a card in round 2.